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]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.