By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Concealed RepublicanConcealed Republican
  • Home
  • Latest News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
Reading: Gun Control Advocates: About Those Hunting Rifles We Said Were Okay…
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Font ResizerAa
Concealed RepublicanConcealed Republican
  • News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
  • Home
  • Latest News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
Concealed Republican > Blog > News > Gun Control Advocates: About Those Hunting Rifles We Said Were Okay…
News

Gun Control Advocates: About Those Hunting Rifles We Said Were Okay…

Jim Taft
Last updated: April 26, 2026 10:28 pm
By Jim Taft 5 Min Read
Share
Gun Control Advocates: About Those Hunting Rifles We Said Were Okay…
SHARE

Fifty years ago, the gun control lobby’s position was that handguns should (and could) be banned without violating the Second Amendment, but they had no interest in going after “sporting” arms. Even today it’s not uncommon for anti-gun politicians to argue that nobody “needs” a particular firearm to hunt deer or turkey, which insinuates that they believe those guns are okay to possess, at least in limited circumstances. 





In court, however, the gun control lobby is making a very different argument. 

A supplemental brief was filed by the anti-gun amici in our lawsuit challenging the NFA, where they argue that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect guns commonly used in “sporting uses, collections, and competitions”: https://t.co/zWp0huB1Vy pic.twitter.com/8CLgkRtZ5b

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) April 24, 2026

The brief filed by Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; Harris County, Texas; Everytown for Gun Safety; Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in support of the BATFE does indeed claim that the Second Amendment only protects those arms that are in common use for self-defense; essentially reversing decades of public statements and policies promoted by the anti-gunners. 

Bruen establishes that the “common use” question under the Second Amendment is whether an arm is lawfully “‘in common use’ today for self-defense.” Applying that standard requires consideration of a weapon’s actual use and objective design and features, which establish the uses for which it is suited. Weapons that are commonly used in and suitable for lawful self-defense fall within the scope of the Second Amendment right, but those that are “most useful in military service,” or “ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” do not. That limitation follows sensibly from the “‘common use for self-defense’ rationale for the private right to bear arms.”





In Heller, the Supreme Court held that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess afirearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” That language clearly indicates that self-defense is not the only lawful purposes for keeping and bearing arms, as the gun control advocates (and several federal courts) have asserted. 

In their recent amicus brief, the gun control groups and their allies in local government claim that this is a foregone conclusion, which is why “Bruen itself, in analyzing step one, asked specifically whether handguns were ‘in common use’ today for self-defense.’”

That’s too cute by half. The reason why the Supreme Court noted that handguns were in common use today for self-defense is because the case dealt with the licensing of carrying handguns for self-defense. Two of the individual plaintiffs in the case were actually granted New York permits “that allowed them to carry handguns only for purposes of hunting and target shooting,” but they wanted unrestricted licenses that, in the language of the New York statute, would “allow them to carry concealed handguns ‘for personal protection and all lawful purposes.’”





Nowhere in Bruen does the Supreme Court suggest that the only purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the individual right of self-defense. That’s a ludicrous argument, given both the text and history of the amendment and how the right to keep and bear arms has been exercised since 1791. But the next time an anti-gunner tells you that no one needs an AR-15 for deer hunting, ask them if they really believe that a bolt-action rifle is protected by the Second Amendment. They might tell you yes, but Everytown, Brady, and Giffords would beg to disagree. 


Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.





Read the full article here

You Might Also Like

Manhattan DA investigates sex assault allegations against Swalwell

Washington’s new favorite lie: ‘Most migrants are safe’

‘Gun-Free’ Chicago Transit Boosting Security as SCOTUS Weighs Challenge to Carry Ban

CNN’s ‘Christian nationalism’ hit piece targets faith, Trump, and Charlie Kirk

Trump says Iran has CAVED to his demands on nuclear enrichment — and on the Strait of Hormuz

Share This Article
Facebook X Email Print
Previous Article Tesla’s winning the self-driving race — so why is Washington trying to slow it down? Tesla’s winning the self-driving race — so why is Washington trying to slow it down?
Next Article Bongino Exposes How the Left Welcomes Assassination Talk [WATCH] Bongino Exposes How the Left Welcomes Assassination Talk [WATCH]
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

- Advertisement -
Ad image

Latest News

‘You’re A Disgrace’: Trump Snaps At ’60 Minutes’ Interviewer After She Reads From Would-Be-Assassin’s Manifesto
‘You’re A Disgrace’: Trump Snaps At ’60 Minutes’ Interviewer After She Reads From Would-Be-Assassin’s Manifesto
Politics
No, COVID Vaccines Didn’t Save Millions Of Lives, Hospitalizations In United States
No, COVID Vaccines Didn’t Save Millions Of Lives, Hospitalizations In United States
News
MS NOW hosts call out left-wing false flag claims about WHCD shooting
MS NOW hosts call out left-wing false flag claims about WHCD shooting
News
‘You’re A Disgrace’: Trump Snaps At ’60 Minutes’ Interviewer After She Reads From Would-Be-Assassin’s Manifesto
Two Trump Would-Be Assassins Have At Least One Thing In Common: Ukraine Obsession
Politics
Trump rushed to safety after shooting at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Trump rushed to safety after shooting at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
News
Bongino Exposes How the Left Welcomes Assassination Talk [WATCH]
Bongino Exposes How the Left Welcomes Assassination Talk [WATCH]
Politics
© 2025 Concealed Republican. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Press Release
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?