State attorneys: hunting rifles are not “constitutionally” protected in Connecticut
BY Herschel Smith
2 months ago
Source (via WiscoDave).
Hunters take note: State attorneys are arguing your rifles are not “constitutionally” protected in Connecticut.
What does that mean? According to attorney Joshua Perry, who works for the Connecticut Attorney General’s office, this means hunting rifles are legal but not protected by the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution only guarantees citizens the right to guns commonly used in self-defense and that semi-automatic rifles used in hunting do not fall into that category.
This discussion came up on Wednesday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Attorneys representing Gov. Ned Lamont and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) made oral arguments in front of Judge Alison Nathan. This was a part of a lawsuit the NAGR filed against the state last year.
NAGR, and a co-plaintiff Toni Theresa Spera, are challenging “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety.” The act, which was passed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, bans the sale of firearms and accessories classified as “assault weapons.” NAGR and Spera believe this violates their Second Amendment rights.
Perry argued the state could restrict guns not commonly used for self-defense. Nathan asked if, by this logic, semi-automatic hunting rifles were protected. Perry said they are not.
“Connecticut restricts instrumentalities that are unusually dangerous, that are like M16 rifles, that have combat functional features, that allow users to hose down… a battlefield or tragically a school and cause a disproportionate number of casualties,” Perry said.
He referenced the bans of the M16. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on the weapon in Columbia v. Heller.
Perry argues that the “plain text as historically understood” of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to self-defense, “not a right to possess any type of weapon for any sort of confrontation.”
Immediately after these arguments, another gun case was argued: Eddie Grant, Jr., v. James Rovella. Perry presented during these arguments as well.
“Connecticut has not banned hunting rifles. Whether or not they are constitutionally protected, they are certainly democratically protected,” Perry said. “As a rule, something that is popular doesn’t need constitutional protection, because it’s popular. Hunting rifles would certainly fall into that category.”
He went on to say, “As to whether Connecticut could restrict hunting rifles, I think we probably could not, because I think it could be shown that they are not unusually dangerous. They are not ill disproportionately suited in the way that… AR-15s are, and the record might well show that they were used and useful for self-defense. I’ll be honest, we have not done that analysis, but I have no reason to think that wouldn’t be true.”
Semi-automatic shotguns are used for hunting pheasants, waterfowl and partridge, according to Eugene Kisielewski, the treasurer of the Northwest Connecticut Rod and Gun Club, who spoke with Inside Investigator about hunting and gun ownership in Connecticut.
Kisielewski, who owns a semi-automatic shotgun to hunt pheasants, believes gun regulations in Connecticut are too strict, and expects them to get stricter in the immediate future.
“We do have a constitutional right to own and use firearms. When you’re talking [banning] about a particular type of firearm, then I think you’re really discriminating overall,” he said. “Unfortunately, I don’t see the difference in hunting with a semi-auto versus a bolt action or a pump action or a single shot. The projectile still comes out at the end of the barrel at a high rate of speed.”
Attorney Barry Arrington, who represented NAGR, says the AR-15 is not dangerous or unusual in the United States.
“The fact of the matter is that this is political grandstanding by the Connecticut legislature, it has no effect on crime,” Arrington told Inside Investigator in an interview. “For obvious reasons, a criminal is not going to walk down the street with the AR-15. All the cases say that handguns are preferred by shooters, even in mass shootings.”
The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the United States.
According to a report from the National Institute of Justice, over 75% of mass shootings involved handguns, and 25% involved assault rifles.
However, only 3% of gun deaths involved rifles of any kinds, according to Pew Research Center.
“If the most popular rifle in America is not protected by the constitution, then [no rifle] is,” Arrington said in court.
This is almost too much to unpack in a single post, but let’s give it a try.
First of all, sniper rifles of all sorts are still predominately bolt action rifles. The shooters are just highly trained and very good at their craft. So are so-called DMs (designated marksmen), although a DM might also use a semi-automatic rifle (either in 5.56mm or 7.62mm).
But as for the danger any long gun presents, simply see the example of Charles Whitman, who managed to kill 17 people mostly with a Remington 700 and Remington 6mm rifle, both bolt guns.
This conversation above is way behind the times. Many deer hunters are taking game with semi-automatic AR-10s shooting 6.5mm Creedmoor or .308. Good guns are capable of ~ 1 MOA or better. There is simply no difference today except hunter’s choice.
The conversation above also shows the complete ignorance of the lawyers who argued the case. They hadn’t thought about these issues. Or maybe they had thought about it, they just didn’t have an answer because lawyers seldom attempt to make their case logical, preferring to submit arguments to win a case regardless of how inconsistent or irrational they are. Here’s a tip for reading legal briefs and “friend of the court” briefs. If you study an argument, and agree or disagree with it, you might go to the next argument in the brief and see one that completely contradicts all of the salient points made in the prior argument. That’s not a mistake. They usually make no attempt to be persuasive using a logical approach all the way through the brief. The singular goal is to win the case, and if the judges won’t accept one argument, they might accept the next one.
But for the deer hunters out there who prefer their bolt action rifles and look down on guys who use AR-10s (there is still a lot of folks like that) and therefore stay away from gun rights arguments and even neglect to vote, David Codrea has a message for you: “Your turn in the barrel, Fudds. Just because Polyphemus promised to eat you last didn’t mean he wasn’t going to.”
You see, they don’t care about being honest. It’s all just in the messaging. All they care about is confiscating your firearms. In Australia, my understanding is that they have even outlawed lever action long guns because they are “repeaters.”
Always remember their long game (TCJ, citing Daily Kos).
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it. The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.
If you think they are willing to stop at collecting machine guns, they will eventually go for your semi-automatic rifles. If you think they will stop at semi-automatic rifles, they’ll go for your bolt action and lever action rifles when you’re not looking.
They are the enemy. See them as such or you won’t have any firearms to take on your deer hunting trips no matter how nice that Remington 700 is and how many deer you’ve taken with it.
They hate you. They want you disarmed. Never forget that.
The second amendment is about the right of insurrection, not hunting, nor technically self defense, unless you fold self defense into the right of defense against tyranny (which I think is a perfectly fine and logically consistent thing to do). The point isn’t whether hunting rifles (here they mean bolt action rifles) are protected and whether they can be used for self defense. They are, and they have been, as have AR-15s.
Any weapon can be and has been used in warfare, from rocks to spears to arrows to revolvers to balls of fire to melted tar to bolt action and semi-automatic rifles and pistols and bombs.
All weapons are weapons of war. The issue here is that if they want to collect your guns, they intend to do something to you that would cause you to need your guns.
UPDATE: Kamala Harris once suggested that it would be great to ban all gun ownership (via Instapundit). But you knew that about her anyway.
On October 23, 2024 at 6:44 am, jrg said:
Yes, becoming more transparent all the time. I guess they decided the more slower to fire but more potentially accurate and common ‘hunting rifle’ (whatever that is) is moved up to catch up to the nasty AR-AK47 assault rifles. Way too many hunters to encounter in a skirmish line.
On October 23, 2024 at 7:22 am, ragman said:
How about the thin blue line go after the real criminals in this country. Home grown gangs and millions of illegals. Oh, I forgot, our heroes are scared to death to take on the real bad guys.
On October 23, 2024 at 10:23 am, Noway2 said:
The tyrants will never stop voluntarily. You’re not going to vote them out. You’re not going to lawsuit them into compliance or acceptance of your inherent rights. It’s a second amendment problem that requires as second amendment solution. The second amendment is about giving the People the ability to tell the tyrants, NO!
On October 23, 2024 at 2:03 pm, Joe Blow said:
“guns commonly used in self-defense”
Self defense against [i]what[/i]?
Tyrannical government, is what. Ergo they are arguing we should have F-15s and nuclear bombs, as per the 2nd Amendment, they are ‘arms’. Bravo, dipshits. You just argued against the assault weapons ban.
On October 23, 2024 at 2:38 pm, Sisu said:
Last Friday the National Firearms Act – 2024 Conference at the Univ. of Wyoming, College of Law, was broadcast live (https://firearmsresearchcenter.org/).
One presenter, Prof. Tom Bell (https://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/thomas-bell), offered “The Counter-Militia Second Amendment”, a unique perspective on the preamble.
In short, he makes a compelling argument that SCOTUS in Heller, McDonald, Bruen and all other pro Second Amendment decisions has blatantly (and perhaps intentionally) mis characterized the pre amble – “A well regulated Militia being, necessary to the security of a free State,” as being “pro militia”, i.e., the militia is a good and desirable thing.
But, “Plain Meaning”, “Constitutional Structure”, “Original Meaning” and “Consent of the People” all would compel a “counter-militia” understanding, i.e., the militia like government is nothing more than a “necessary evil” against which the People must be ready to stand opposed. …
Bell’s presentation was an overview of a draft legal article he has written (19pgs; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=183716 ssrn-4976064).
On October 23, 2024 at 5:50 pm, CT Ginger said:
Its fine for the government to regulate the Militia’s use and possession of arms; military command structure requires it. The right to arms of the people, however, shall not be infringed.
On October 24, 2024 at 5:01 pm, Paul B said:
When you show up for milita you will need a bone stock ar and 1000 rounds loaded in magazines. If you have a side arm it can be anything but a Glock. M17, m19, m9 or 1911 will be supported. You need 200 rounds for your pistol. Need 1Afik and appropriate bed roll.
Get a few hundred of those, train to Ranger status and should be able to do about anything.
That is more than they had in the first revolution.
Just on thought evolution.
On October 25, 2024 at 3:48 am, streamfortyseven said:
The Second Amendment was drafted by the Anti-Federalists, who were concerned that the “consolidated government” created by the Federalist Constitution of 1787 would become a tyranny.
To wit: “We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble-and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, “that all men are born equal”-beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy.
lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually . . . lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their constituents, and thereby prove the “weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show the shiftings of every fashionable gale,”-for we have not yet to learn that little else is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that grand engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our government from time to time for life. This will have a two-fold good effect. First, it prevents the representatives from mixing with the lower class, and imbibing their foolish sentiments, with which they would have come charged on re-election.
…
We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective states, the happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we could not bring the states into it individually, we have determined … and have taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking hogs or determining the width of cart wheels. But (aware that an intention to annihilate state legislatures, would be objected to our favorite scheme) we have made their existence (as a board of electors) necessary to ours. This furnishes us and our advocates with a fine answer to any clamors that may be raised on this subject. We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector).” in “Antifederalist Paper 9 – A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY” https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/just-for-the-record-antifederalist
And we all know who the Aristocratic Party are – and have been…
On October 27, 2024 at 8:02 am, IA Brooks said:
The Anti-Federalists were right.
On October 29, 2024 at 2:49 pm, Brice Blancnet said:
It’s unfortunate to see hunting rifles called into question in debates like this, as they’re crucial to both our hunting traditions and conservation efforts here at SandFork Texas Hog Hunting Ranch. Our hunters rely on a variety of rifles to responsibly hunt and manage wild hog populations, and we support the belief that ethical, regulated hunting is a positive force for both sportsmen and the environment. The distinction between self-defense weapons and hunting rifles needs to be clarified, as semi-automatic rifles used by hunters serve a specific purpose and don’t belong in the “assault weapon” conversation. For anyone interested in experiencing ethical hunting in Texas, visit us at SandFork Texas Hog Hunting Ranch and see what responsible hunting is all about.
On October 29, 2024 at 8:44 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Brice,
Our position is that nothing whatsoever needs to be clarified except for “Shall not be infringed.” Again and again to the controllers.
Any man who says he wants his bolt action rifle to hunt with, but won’t allow someone else to own a semi-automatic rifle FOR ANY REASON HE CHOOSES is no friend of the 2A.
That’s part of why we are where we are today. Just because the controllers said they would eat you last doesn’t mean they won’t eat you.
We can stand together or let petty differences divide us and the controllers win.