Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Judge acknowledges Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting

Unless 'tyrant hunting' becomes a sport . . .
Photo © Oleg Volk. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Very few politicians, no matter how rabidly hostile they are to private ownership of firearms, are willing to risk not claiming to "support the Second Amendment." Anti-gun politicians, in other words, would rather transparently lie about such support, than acknowledge that they would dearly love to gut the Constitutional guarantee of a fundamental human right.

To shore up their dubious Second Amendment "street cred," they often cite their love of hunting. Thus we the voters are subjected to tales of Hillary Clinton's hunting prowess (yeah--a true champion of the Second Amendment is Hillary), photo ops of John Kerry in his brand-spanking-new hunting duds, and Mitt Romney claiming to have been a lifelong hunter, and then when it was discovered he had never held a hunting license, hurriedly switching to billing himself as a mighty slayer of "small varmints." Joe Biden is another who tried to assure gun owners that an Obama/Biden presidency would be no threat to gun rights, because as a hunter he would not allow it, and later went on to advise women to fire shotgun blasts randomly into the air when threatened, and homeowners to fire their shotguns through the doors of their homes.

The correct response to all of these claims is, of course, "So what?" What does a politician's enthusiasm for hunting, even if genuine, have to do with his willingness to fight for the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--or even to simply refrain from efforts to erode it? Are we to believe that the Founding Fathers devoted ten percent of the Bill of Rights to the protection of sport?

A judge in Pennsylvania is evidently not buying this fabricated link between hunting and the Second Amendment. According to the SF Gate, U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane ruled that Pennsylvania's ban on Sunday hunting does not violate hunters' Constitutional rights:

U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane made the ruling in a suit brought by the Lancaster County-based Hunters United for Sunday Hunting against the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the agency that enforces the state's game code.

Kane said she could find no proof that courts have extended Second Amendment protections to include recreational hunting.

The intent here is not to antagonize hunters, or to be anything less than welcoming to their participation in the fight for gun rights. The point is that we are continually told that banning so-called "assault weapons," or .50 caliber rifles, or "high capacity" (gun ban jihadist-speak for "standard capacity") magazines is perfectly legitimate, because "no one needs those for hunting."

Any restriction on guns, ammunition and accessories justified by their failure to meet the government's idea of "sporting purposes" is very clearly a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as the court ruling in Pennsylvania helps illustrate.


If you're a regular St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Kurt Hofmann) and Twitter (@45superman), and telling your like-minded friends about it. Also watch for Kurt's articles for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Report this ad