Gun control groups argue hunting rifles are not protected under the Second Amendment

Gun rights writer Cam Edwards and YouTuber Liberty Doll are warning that several major gun control groups have made a striking argument in court: that the Second Amendment protects only weapons commonly used for self-defense, not firearms owned mainly for hunting, sport shooting, collecting, or competition.

In an article for Bearing Arms, Edwards said this marks a sharp turn from decades of public messaging by gun control advocates, who have often told hunters that their rifles were not the target.

Liberty Doll made a similar point in her video, saying groups such as Everytown, Brady, and Giffords have long used the line that “hunting rifles are okay” when speaking in public hearings or when defending restrictions on other firearms.

But in court, both Edwards and Liberty Doll argued, the message looks very different.

A New Argument In An NFA Lawsuit

Liberty Doll said the issue comes from a lawsuit challenging the National Firearms Act, with the Firearms Policy Coalition, the NRA, the American Suppressor Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation involved on the plaintiffs’ side.

The lawsuit names the ATF and DOJ as defendants, according to Liberty Doll.

She said Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; Harris County, Texas; Everytown for Gun Safety; the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a supplemental brief in the case.

Edwards focused on the same brief in Bearing Arms, saying the gun control groups and local governments claimed the Second Amendment protects only arms that are “in common use” today for self-defense.

The brief, as quoted by both Edwards and Liberty Doll, argued that weapons commonly used and suitable for lawful self-defense fall within the scope of the Second Amendment, while weapons “most useful in military service” or “ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense” do not.

That sounds technical, and it is. But the practical meaning is much bigger.

If the Second Amendment protects only guns commonly used for self-defense, then firearms commonly owned for hunting or sporting purposes could be pushed outside the core of constitutional protection, at least under that theory.

Edwards Says This Reverses Decades Of Messaging

Edwards said gun control advocates have spent years telling the public that they were not after “sporting” arms.

He wrote that 50 years ago, the gun control lobby’s position was that handguns could be banned without violating the Second Amendment, while hunting and sporting arms were treated as acceptable, at least in limited circumstances.

Even today, Edwards noted, anti-gun politicians often argue that no one “needs” a certain firearm to hunt deer or turkey.

That argument usually implies that traditional hunting guns are safe from the policy fight.

But Edwards said the brief now suggests something else. In his view, the gun control lobby is saying in court that Second Amendment protection turns on self-defense, not hunting.

That is what makes the argument so interesting, and also so revealing. Public messaging tends to be simple: “We are not coming for hunters.” Legal briefs tend to show what a movement is really asking judges to accept.

Edwards’ point is that those two messages no longer match.

Liberty Doll Calls It A Misreading Of Heller And Bruen

Liberty Doll said the brief takes issue with the common understanding of “common use,” which she said usually means how common a firearm is among the public, not how often it is used in actual self-defense incidents.

She said the gun control groups are trying to narrow the test by asking whether a firearm is commonly used for self-defense specifically.

According to Liberty Doll, the argument becomes: if a person cannot point to a firearm as a common self-defense tool, then it may not be protected under the Second Amendment.

She strongly rejected that reading.

Liberty Doll said the groups are treating Heller and Bruen as if those cases applied only to handguns because both involved self-defense language. But she argued they are ignoring the broader wording from Heller, where the Supreme Court discussed firearms used for “traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.”

The phrase “such as” is doing a lot of work there.

Liberty Doll said that language clearly suggests self-defense is an example of a lawful purpose, not the only lawful purpose.

Edwards made the same argument in his article, writing that Heller’s language “clearly indicates” that self-defense is not the only lawful reason to keep and bear arms.

Why Bruen Mentioned Handguns

The brief cited by Edwards and Liberty Doll also points to Bruen, arguing that the Supreme Court asked whether handguns were in common use today for self-defense.

Edwards called that argument “too cute by half.”

He said the Court mentioned handguns and self-defense in Bruen because that case was about New York’s licensing rules for carrying handguns for self-defense.

According to Edwards, two individual plaintiffs in Bruen had already received permits that allowed them to carry handguns only for hunting and target shooting, but they wanted unrestricted licenses for personal protection and other lawful purposes.

Liberty Doll made the same point in simpler terms.

She said Bruen focused on handguns for self-defense because the case itself was about concealed carry licenses for self-defense. Hunting and target shooting were not the center of the dispute because the plaintiffs had already been allowed to carry for those purposes.

That context matters. A court case usually answers the question in front of it, not every possible question surrounding a constitutional right.

So when Bruen talked about handguns in common use for self-defense, Edwards and Liberty Doll argue, it was not secretly saying that hunting rifles, target rifles, or other lawful arms fall outside the Second Amendment.

The “Hunting Rifle” Problem

This is where the argument becomes politically awkward.

For years, gun control advocates have often used hunting as a dividing line. They have argued that certain weapons are unnecessary because people do not need them to hunt deer.

But if the legal standard becomes self-defense use only, then the same people could end up saying hunting rifles are not constitutionally protected because they are not commonly used for self-defense.

Liberty Doll said that is the contradiction.

Usually, she argued, gun control advocates say people do not need guns for self-defense and only need them for hunting. Now, she said, the court argument flips that around and suggests the Second Amendment protects only guns used for self-defense.

It is a clever legal squeeze, but also a revealing one. If a firearm is too defensive-looking, critics may call it too dangerous. If it is mostly used for hunting, they may say it does not count as protected self-defense equipment.

That leaves gun owners wondering what, exactly, would still be safe under that standard.

Edwards said the next time an anti-gun politician says no one needs an AR-15 to hunt deer, gun owners should ask whether that person believes a bolt-action hunting rifle is protected by the Second Amendment.

He said they might answer yes in public, but groups like Everytown, Brady, and Giffords would “beg to disagree,” based on the brief.

Liberty Doll Says The Argument Is Intentional

Liberty Doll did not give the groups much benefit of the doubt.

She said the argument is “obtuse willful ignorance at best and malicious misunderstanding at worst.”

Because these organizations have legal teams, Liberty Doll said she believes they know what Heller and Bruen say, but are trying to push a narrower interpretation anyway.

Her concern is that this argument may spread.

Liberty Doll said it will be interesting to see how many gun control supporters pick up the same claim, adding that she expects to see it more often.

That is not an unreasonable concern from her point of view. Legal arguments that start in briefs can become talking points, then policy arguments, then lower-court standards if judges accept them.

Edwards’ article raised the same warning in a more measured way: in public, gun control advocates may still talk as though hunting rifles are not the target, but in court, they are advancing a theory that could leave hunting and sporting arms outside Second Amendment protection.

A Fight Over What The Right Actually Protects

At the heart of the debate is a basic question: does the Second Amendment protect arms only when they are commonly used for self-defense, or does it protect arms kept and carried for broader lawful purposes?

Edwards and Liberty Doll both argue that the Supreme Court’s language supports the broader reading.

They say self-defense is central, but not exclusive.

That distinction matters. If “self-defense” becomes the only protected purpose, then courts could treat hunting, collecting, target shooting, and competition as hobbies rather than constitutional activities.

For gun rights advocates, that would be a major retreat from how the Second Amendment has long been understood by many firearm owners.

It would also turn a familiar gun control message on its head. The same movement that once reassured hunters that their rifles were safe is now, according to Edwards and Liberty Doll, backing a legal theory that may not protect those rifles at all.

Liberty Doll ended her video by saying the point did not need a long rebuttal because she viewed the argument as plainly wrong.

Edwards closed with a similar warning, though in his usual written style: if someone says no one needs a certain gun for hunting, ask whether they think hunting guns are protected in the first place.

That question may sound simple.

But based on this court brief, the answer may be far more complicated than many gun owners were once told.