{"id":116457,"date":"2026-04-27T15:44:39","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T20:44:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116457"},"modified":"2026-04-27T15:44:39","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T20:44:39","slug":"116457","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116457","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p>BLUF<br \/>\nNowhere 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&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/bearingarms.com\/camedwards\/2026\/04\/26\/gun-control-advocates-about-those-hunting-rifles-we-said-were-okay-n1232343\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Gun Control Advocates: About Those Hunting Rifles We Said Were Okay&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Fifty years ago, the gun control lobby&#8217;s position was that handguns should (and could) be banned without violating the Second Amendment, but they had no interest in going after &#8220;sporting&#8221; arms. Even today it&#8217;s not uncommon for anti-gun politicians to argue that nobody &#8220;needs&#8221; a particular firearm to hunt deer or turkey, which insinuates that they believe those guns are okay to possess, at least in limited circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>In court, however, the gun control lobby is making a very different argument.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\">\n<p dir=\"ltr\" lang=\"en\">A supplemental brief was filed by the anti-gun amici in our lawsuit challenging the NFA, where they argue that the Second Amendment doesn&#8217;t protect guns commonly used in &#8220;sporting uses, collections, and competitions&#8221;: <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/zWp0huB1Vy\">https:\/\/t.co\/zWp0huB1Vy<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/8CLgkRtZ5b\">pic.twitter.com\/8CLgkRtZ5b<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/gunpolicy\/status\/2047777901706146017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">April 24, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Bruen establishes that the \u201ccommon use\u201d question under the Second Amendment is whether an arm is lawfully \u201c\u2018in common use\u2019 today for self-defense.\u201d Applying that standard requires consideration of a weapon\u2019s 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 \u201cmost useful in military service,\u201d or \u201cill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,\u201d do not. That limitation follows sensibly from the \u201c\u2018common use for self-defense\u2019 rationale for the private right to bear arms.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In Heller, the Supreme Court held that &#8220;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.&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<p>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 &#8220;Bruen itself, in analyzing step one, asked specifically whether handguns were &#8216;in common use\u2019 today for self-defense.&#8217;\u201d<\/p>\n<p>That&#8217;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 &#8220;that allowed them to carry handguns only for purposes of hunting and target shooting,&#8221; but they wanted unrestricted licenses that, in the language of the New York statute, would &#8220;allow them to carry concealed handguns &#8216;for personal protection and all lawful purposes.&#8217;\u201d<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>BLUF 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&#8217;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. Gun Control Advocates: &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116457\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8,74,80],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba","category-scratch-a-lib-find-a-tyrant","category-you-cant-make-this-up"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=116457"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":116458,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116457\/revisions\/116458"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=116457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=116457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=116457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}