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.