State Attorney Argues Your Hunting Rifles Are Not “Constitutionally” Protected in Connecticut

In a case that is sure to stir up heated debate among gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, state attorneys representing Connecticut have claimed that hunting rifles are not protected under the U.S. Constitution. This bold assertion, delivered in recent court proceedings, has raised questions about the future of gun rights in the state, particularly for those who use firearms for sporting purposes.

Joshua Perry, an attorney for the Connecticut Attorney General’s office, made the statement during a hearing at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

What the Constitution Protects, According to the State

Perry’s argument centers on a distinction between firearms commonly used for self-defense and those used for hunting. According to Alex Appel, author of an article for Connecticut Inside Investigator, Perry contended that the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to own guns for self-defense but does not extend that protection to hunting rifles. This is a significant departure from the views of many gun owners who consider their rifles essential not only for hunting but also for home defense.

Appel also reports that this legal debate stems from a lawsuit filed by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) challenging Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The law, passed after the Sandy Hook tragedy, bans the sale of certain firearms, including semi-automatic rifles commonly used for hunting.

Semi-Automatic Rifles: Self-Defense or Sporting Weapons?

At the heart of the case is whether semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15, are more often used for self-defense or hunting. Perry argued that these rifles, while legal, are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not primarily used for defending oneself. This has sparked significant pushback, particularly from gun rights advocates like Barry Arrington, who represented NAGR in the case. Arrington pointed out that the AR-15 is one of the most common rifles in the country and is frequently used for home defense, a point that challenges the state’s argument that the rifle is “dangerous and unusual.”

“If the most popular rifle in America is not protected by the Constitution, then [no rifle] is,” Arrington stated, as reported by Appel. This sentiment echoes the concerns of many gun owners who fear that this legal distinction could lead to further restrictions on firearms.

A Question of Constitutional Rights

Mark, the host of the popular YouTube channel God Family and Guns, weighed in on the issue, pointing out the inconsistency in the state’s argument. In a recent video, he explained that while it is true that the Second Amendment primarily protects the right to self-defense, hunting rifles can serve a dual purpose. He argued that many firearms used for hunting could also be used to defend one’s home and family.

“You don’t buy an AR-15 for hunting,” Mark said. “You buy one to defend yourself, your family, and your property, but it doesn’t mean you can’t use it for both.” His stance reflects the views of many gun owners who see no clear distinction between sporting rifles and self-defense weapons.

The Reddit Community Responds

The discussion around Connecticut’s legal stance has also sparked lively debates on Reddit, particularly among gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment advocates. In a post shared by u/wizzard4hire on the subreddit r/liberalgunowners, the user expressed concerns that the state’s argument might be a “trial balloon” for more restrictive gun laws. “Do you think this is a trial balloon to reduce gun ownership to handguns?” u/wizzard4hire asked, reflecting fears that Connecticut may be laying the groundwork for broader firearm restrictions.

This post received numerous responses, with u/Viper_ACR bluntly stating, “It’s CT, they don’t want you owning any guns.” Such comments reflect a growing concern that the state’s argument is not limited to hunting rifles but could extend to other types of firearms as well.

Heller and the “Dangerous and Unusual” Debate

A central aspect of the case is the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Columbia v. Heller. Perry cited this decision to justify Connecticut’s ban on certain firearms, including AR-15-style rifles. He argued that the state can ban firearms deemed “dangerous and unusual,” a category in which he placed semi-automatic hunting rifles. However, this interpretation has been met with pushback.

Attorney Cameron Atkinson, representing the plaintiff in a related case, argued that the state is twisting the ruling to suit its agenda. He contends that Connecticut must prove that firearms like the AR-15 are both dangerous and unusual, which he argues is impossible given the rifle’s widespread popularity.

Concerns About Future Restrictions

On Reddit, many users voiced concerns that Connecticut’s argument could be a slippery slope leading to the restriction of other firearms, including handguns. u/BobsOblongLongBong expressed frustration, stating, “They just say whatever they want to justify what they want to do. It doesn’t matter if it actually makes sense.” This fear was echoed by u/wizzard4hire, who warned that states are increasingly using legal loopholes to bypass constitutional protections on firearms.

Perry’s Argument: A Narrow Focus on Self-Defense

According to Appel’s report, Perry focused heavily on the idea that the Constitution only protects firearms used for self-defense. “The plain text as historically understood protects the right to self-defense,” Perry argued, claiming that rifles commonly used for hunting do not meet this standard. However, he also admitted that Connecticut has not banned hunting rifles, suggesting that they remain legal due to their popularity, even if they are not constitutionally protected.

A Confusing Distinction

This legal distinction between hunting rifles and self-defense firearms has baffled many gun owners. u/newsreadhjw, commenting on Reddit, pointed out the inconsistency in the state’s logic: “It’s super hypocritical… a semiauto is a much better choice for self-defense than a bolt gun, and they’re saying you can only have a gun for self-defense but not for hunting. That logic makes zero sense.”

Indeed, many gun owners argue that any firearm can serve a dual purpose, depending on how it is used. Whether for hunting or home defense, a rifle’s primary function remains the same.

Slippery Slope Concerns

Many gun owners are concerned that Connecticut’s legal argument could set a dangerous precedent. If the courts agree that hunting rifles are not protected under the Constitution, it could open the door for further restrictions. u/CainnicOrel warned in the Reddit discussion, “You think handguns are safe? They’ll have an argument against those next, trust.”

Such concerns reflect a broader fear that any firearm not explicitly protected under the Second Amendment could become a target for future regulations.

Part of a Larger Effort?

In his video, Mark from God Family and Guns emphasized that the state’s argument is part of a larger effort to undermine the Second Amendment. He pointed out that while hunting rifles may not be the primary focus of gun rights advocates, the real issue is the government’s attempt to regulate firearms of any kind. “This isn’t about hunting,” he said. “This is about your right to defend yourself, and once they start taking that away, there’s no stopping them.”

The Battle Over Gun Rights in Connecticut

The debate over hunting rifles and the Second Amendment is far from over. Connecticut’s legal strategy, if successful, could have wide-reaching implications for gun owners across the state and possibly the nation. As the case continues to unfold, gun rights advocates will be watching closely to see how the courts rule.

In the meantime, the gun community – whether through online forums like Reddit or channels like God Family and Guns – continues to push back against what many see as an overreach by the state. As u/Genome_Doc_76 sarcastically put it, “You’ll have muskets and you’ll like it!” This comment captures the growing concern that stricter gun regulations are on the horizon, and hunting rifles may be just the beginning.

Where Does This Leave Connecticut’s Gun Owners?

For now, hunting rifles remain legal in Connecticut, but the question of their constitutional protection lingers. As the courts grapple with this issue, gun owners in the state are left wondering what the future holds. Will the distinction between self-defense and hunting firearms lead to more restrictions? Or will the courts strike down the state’s argument in favor of broader gun rights?

Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: the debate over the Second Amendment in Connecticut is far from settled.