Judge rules that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect hunting
Kane said she could find no proof that courts have extended Second Amendment protections to include recreational hunting.
I don't think panic is warranted about this decision. It's about regulating how and when hunting can occur, not ownership of tools, which has long been a state perogative. The judge is right that there's no case law yet saying that hunting is protected (as far as I am aware, anyway). Sure, it's an adverse ruling and hunters should be concerned about setting the precedent that hunting is not protected, but it's a district court, which means there are still appeals; it's not a Supreme Court case.
The actual regulation amounts to a rule against hunting on Sundays, and many states have laws forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sundays as well. I oppose both sets of laws, but I'm not freaking out about them.
If worst comes to worst, I'll be glad to testify that your bolt-action hunting rifle is actually a military sniper rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment.
You're welcome.
This entry was published Fri Jun 27 18:32:04 CDT 2014 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2014-06-20 01:53:14.0.
[Tweet]
