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.
Our rights have all but been chipped away by ex post facto laws subjugating free citizens into firearm-prohibited persons.
Well, thanks to all of Trump’s judicial appointments, we are getting our Rights back.
I never “lost” any of my rights. I’m on the same page with this guy…
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 »
See, that’s the problem when you have ” mentally unstable” politicians who reimagine ” rights”, and decide what ” rights” you are allowed to have
The Connecticut AG needs to be removed from office immediately and placed into a mental institution for study and observation!
Good reason to bring back tar & feather the traitors.
When the dookie hits the fan, and it will, these are the people that need to go first. I’m sure they will be armed. Commies.
EVERY firearm can be used as a “weapon of war“. Mike Smith, author of “ISRAEL DISARMED” descrbes how just 15 men and women armed with pistols and very few shotguns (and the majority of defenders having only 50 rounds) held off Hamas terrorists when the cravens attempted to invade their kibutiz. This very interesting book was published just this year. The book is very well foot noted. It is available through Amazon, or Barns and Noble Booksellers. These 15 heros held off the Hamas monsters for over 24 hours as they waited for armed police and the IDF to arrive.… 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?
What is wrong with the Northeast part of the country began with the Pllgrams and Puritans thinking that they were better than everyone else. That attitude got passed to follow on generations. That combined with shipping and trade made them wealthy. That fed the better than you attitude, which continues to this day.
Remember Lawrence Kansas. People from the Northeast funded it, staffed it, and determined the future of Kansas for their “We should do the thinking for you because we are better than you.” agenda.
WB the so called ‘blue bloods’ that trace their roots to the Pilgrims conveniently ‘forget’ that those folks were in effect political and/or religious refugees, hardly the type of people I would want to claim as ancestors.
Don’t forget that most of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons…
As I said below to another commenter, don’t forget the Founders were mostly Freemasons. Freemasonry is a subject you should look into when considering both the founding, and current state of America.
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 »
It also protects knives, clubs, rocks, or any thing that can “arm” an individual. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about defense, nor sensitive places, or any of the other fabricated conditions now used. By the way, all the fabricated conditions are used to restrict your right to arm yourself. None of them are used to enhance your right. Therefore, there is a disarmament agenda here.
HLB
And during the Revolution, militias carried hatchets too.
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.
The second district is nuts!!!
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.
Yep, the first, second, third, fourth, seventh, and ninth district appellate court, are all anti gun.
I listened to some of it so far. The NAGR lawyer might as well argued the government side when it came to automatic weapons.
Thank you that’s exactly what I thought.
Do not think these people are dumb, stupid or idiots. These are smart people who are a part of a political agenda to strip away our rights. They know what they are saying and doing. They desire absolute power and to acquire it requires a disarmed populous. They hide behind phrases like gun violence and assault weapon to scare the uninformed and uneducated. It is up to us as gun owners to get the correct information to the people to counter balance the leftist agenda.
Well said!
It is all about control and power and greed for the hese far leftist politicians. Some of these far leftist politicians are just like the Roman politicians from 2000 years ago , they tell the population, you are our slaves and we are your masters! You will obey us, slaves! Look at China. Civilians are forbidden from owning guns. Only the police, military and politicians can own guns. How else can they control a population of over 1.3 billion people.? It is all about control. China has gone before the UN council and demanded that they ban the 2nd amendment… Read more »
These people are dumb. They are puppets. It’s the puppet masters behind the scenes who control them which are evil geniuses, and the ones we need to focus our attention on. The people you say that are uninformed and uneducated, that isn’t the correct way to describe them. They are informed, and educated, but not in truth and in facts, but rather propaganda lies. That’s the whole goal of public schooling, which has been going on for over a century. Plus add in college. Then add in corporate media which, again is controlled by the government, courtesy Operation Mockingbird, which… Read more »
I just don’t get why the attorneys in these cases don’t use HOMELAND SECURITY’s RFP for “PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPONS” in the form of full auto AR15s. It’s literally on their website, the GOVERNMENT calling the AR15 a Personal Defense Weapon in plain English.
Yep, that is an official document of the U.S. Government admissable in any court in this country!
LMAO. I am USMC military personnel retired. I never heard of a weapon of war and I used M16 and 50 caliber on a tripod and off of a duce and a half.
So, the left needs to give me the military designated number of a weapon of war in order for me to recognize it.
P. S. leftists idiots, there aint one.
Trump/Vance 2024
Semper Fi compadre
When the 2nd amendment was written, unless you lived in a city, shooting your own game was commonplace for citizens in every state in the union. So common that no one would think to write a law specifically allowing it.
A proper understanding of the 2nd Amendment, as intended by the drafters and those who ratified it, is that citizens may posses any arm useful to an ordinary infantryman. Its purpose is to enable us to assemble an efficient militia. This covers all ordinary firearms: pistols, bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, and shotguns.
You are half right in that those arms are protected but that is not the limit. Anything useful to someone bearing a Letter of Marque and Reprisal is covered too. Nuclear, biological and some chemical weapons may be off the table, but that’s all.
Not to far leftist, mentally unstable politicians!
Dear Fudd,
Welcome to the party. Nobody NEEDS a sniper rifle with a 30 round scopeazine!!!
correct, send the old lady out, who changes your diaper, on the porch with a shotgun… a couple of blasts that you don’t know what hit are “perfect”
long live the stoner #naziGun
I’m not sure saying Eugene Stoner and his rifles are in your words “#naziGun” is helpful to our cause. We don’t need to encourage the lie among the left that we’re all a bunch of armband wearing, Hitler worshiping numbskulls.
Just stick with the facts, that Eugene Stoner, invented among other things the most popular rifle series in America the AR15, and we as American citizens have the right to own them.
This is the correct answer. This puts the vest wearing, 1911 carrying (TwO wOrLd WaRs) crusty old farts right in the crosshairs!
The 1911 is a little past it’s prime…
The 1911 is the best handgun ever made
How so? The most nostalgic? The best looking? Has the most history behind it? Yes, yes, and yes. But, otherwise, how so? The 1911 doesn’t come close to the reliability of the Glock series, Beretta 92, Sig series and countless other newer designs. Glocks, I know this from personal experience, I shot about 3,000 rounds through one before I cleaned it. Not because it was malfunctioning, but more for my piece of mind. Glocks, can easily go 20,000 to 30,000 round without cleaning. I don’t like Beretta 92’s or Sigs but, they beat the 1911 in reliability hands down. And… Read more »
Who are you to make that conclusion? And what is a scopeazine?
Sarcasm is all the authority he needs.
Few of us NEED a machine gun – but all of us need the right to acquire, keep and feed them.
We ought to get our machine guns back and keep all auto-loaders.
I hope you are being facetious.
It should’ve been obvious from the get go that Heller was a problem. Why can’t we use an M16 for defense? Or fun? Or hunting coyotes? Or just because we want one? Why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment offer a blanket protection on all weapons? “Shall not be infringed”… Sounds pretty simple to me. Then there’s the “in common use” issue. What happens when the next evolution in small arms comes? Lasers, or whatever? The anti gun nuts will ban them, within days of their being available for sale and have the blessing of the oh so special highest court of… Read more »
Not being “in common use” does not mean a weapon can be banned. It is however a test which absolutely forbids restricting any qualifying item.
This is why one of the circuit courts (2, 7 or 9 I think) determined that ARs are not arms and thus fall outside 2A protections. They could think of nothing else upon which to hang their ruling. If such utter BS is the best they can do – and they are willing to use it – then that court becomes utterly irrelevant.
If it has to be “in common use”… And is not “in common use”…
Obviously I know what “Shall not be infringed means”, and the judges don’t care about that.
The Second Amendment does provide a blanket protection for all weapons used in war. The whole legal situation rests upon the Preemption Doctrine, which takes pages to explain and hours of typing. I am going to give you the short version. The various governments, at every level, pretend that the NFA and GCA and Hughes Amendment are based upon Congress’ power to control commerce. Because the NFA, GCA, and HA have not been claimed by the federal government or deemed by the S. Ct to have “filled the legal field” (known as Preemption) on the subject of gun control, the… Read more »
I think you took some of my sarcasm literally. Unfortunately, I don’t think voting’s going to help much here, as we’re talking about the constitution, and the constitution is a piece of paper, which neither party cares about, and no one knows the history of, or the meaning to, and schools/colleges don’t teach. Plus much of the country wants to burn it, while most of the rest of the country doesn’t even know it exists. We live in a post constitutional America. We must start thinking outside the box of “but the constitution say this or that”. We’re fighting more… Read more »
Note: All weapons have been, and continue to be used in war. Read some of the accounts from the early days of Putin’s “Special Military operation”. The Ukrainians used what they had.
After Roe v Wade fiasco, SCOTUS is hesitant to get too far ahead of common social mores. Thus they allowed ban on machine guns – likely assuming continued proliferation of semi-autos would normalize them – and that confusing semi & fully auto would in turn normalize machine guns. I believe time is quickly coming when we can correct legal errors regarding machine guns. Unfortunately certain justices are reaching quite advanced ages – putting a time limit on fixing errors of the past. If KH gets into office and if she has support of legislative branch – we will be screwed.… Read more »
I’m not sure how Roe Vs Wade figures into this. The lawyers in the case talked about in the article referenced the Heller decision which was in 2008, which brought back the “in common use” idea, which came from a 1939 case called Miller. The “in common use” idea is what I’m saying will be a major problem in the future. And it should’ve been evident to anyone who’s 2A that it will be, both in 2008 and back in 1939. So both in 2008 and 1939, Roe Vs Wade was not part of the political picture at either time… Read more »
only RedCoats in England.
Do you mean ” New England” ?
noice..
IMAO, have the State attorneys break out their copy of the BoR and show us where it refers to hunting rifles aren’t covered in the 2nd Amendment.
It’s there, right next to the abortion language. How these tyrants passed the bar is beyond comprehension.
sarc alert, kill babies not bambies, alert off.
gosh.. lol
Where do they find these low IQ mentally historically void morons? Another dimension?
Ruger needs to get the hell out of CT.
Those bafoons MUST be removed from office.
I’m the plaintiff in the second case Grant v Rovella. Yes we have very rabid senseless STUPID politicians!!!
https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3ca70b44-fb94-46f3-803e-61d6aaf5053b/1/doc/23-1344.mp3?fbclid=IwY2xjawGMb75leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHYIT3M-n8fSvIARi58FgZW84Tn73hL2tsprYnsmnh31zsqDVYFv7EQLg1w_aem_wcg7Uoz-O66XTA7eq0suaQ
“State Attorneys Claim Hunting Rifles Not Constitutionally Protected in Connecticut”
And they use to claim that the 2nd Amendment applied ONLY to hunting and NOT self defense…
WTF is wrong with these people…???
The crooked politicians just proved they will stop at nothing when it comes
to trying to take away our God given rights (2A)… They can go to hell.
When are enough people going to wake up to the crimes and criminality of the legal system, boycott it, and put it out of business?? Such a simple question, but no one seems to be able to answer it!!
Tar, feathers, rope……..joshua perry should “not be protected”
https://www.scribd.com/document/122085514/DHS-RFP-to-GSA-For-Purchase-of-7000-AR-15-s
The hunting banning groups are joining up with the gun banning groups. If these groups can ban hunting, then they can ban ” hunting rifles” as no one is allowed to hunt, so hunting rifles are banned. What you have is far leftist politicians who want to ban hunting and ban hunting rifles. Most of these hunting banning groups and gun banning groups are run and funded by George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and the Chinese government The Chinese government has gone before the UN council and demanded that they abolish the 2nd amendment in America. In China, it is forbidden… Read more »
Interesting claim that semi-automatic hunting rifles, and all other hunting rifles are not included in the 2nd Amendment. The U.S. has a long history extending from the early 1900’s of ‘progressive’ judges at appelant levels splitting firearms and other weapons into smaller and smaller slices so they can be easily and without great fanfare banned, especially for certain groups of people. Read: “To Trust the People with Arms” for a powerful discussion of how former SCOTUS’ judges supported the Jim Crow laws in both North and South that targeted the 2nd Amendment rights of a specific slice of American citizens:… Read more »