What does that mean? According to attorney Joshua Perry, who works for the Connecticut Attorney General’s office, this means hunting rifles are legal but not protected by the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution only guarantees citizens the right to guns commonly used in self-defense and that semi-automatic rifles used in hunting do not fall into that category.

Perry argued the state could restrict guns not commonly used for self-defense. Nathan asked if, by this logic, semi-automatic hunting rifles were protected. Perry said they are not.

“Connecticut has not banned hunting rifles. Whether or not they are constitutionally protected, they are certainly democratically protected,” Perry said. “As a rule, something that is popular doesn’t need constitutional protection, because it’s popular. Hunting rifles would certainly fall into that category.”

dalemoss wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 2:29 pm Even though they’re widely accepted and allowed, they don’t fall under the same protection as other types of firearms.

tailgunner wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:47 pm Maybe the military where you came from didn't want them but we sure did.

The primary market for the Model 8 was sport hunting. The Model 8 was used as a police gun, modified to use detachable extended capacity magazines, among other changes. While seeing limited use in World War I, it was used by the French Aéronautique Militaire[10] in very small numbers. It is noted as the rifle of choice by famed Texas Ranger Frank Hamer.[4]

Although the weapon did see action in late 1918 during World War I, the BAR did not become standard issue in the US Army until 1938, when it was issued to squads as a portable light machine gun.

tailgunner wrote: Maybe the military where you came from didn't want them but we sure did.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bisbee wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2024 2:46 am Legal fugery there to try to push a point across. As if there was a difference between humans and animals when it comes to weapons. Since when was the 2nd Amendment primarily about home or personal defence?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What I read is that lethal force is important for the security if a free State… free from outward invasion as well as free from tyranny. So any legal interpretation about what kind of gun is allowed is just pulled from someone’s ass.

CDFingers wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2024 10:51 am They remain nonetheless the Law of the Land.

CDF

sikacz wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 8:45 pm

tailgunner wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:47 pm Maybe the military where you came from didn't want them but we sure did.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, the Remington Model 8 was primarily a hunting rifle, used by some law enforcement agencies like the Texas Rangers. It was also used in limited numbers by the French in WW1, but not by our military. I’ve read it was offered to our (US) military and turned down.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_8

The primary market for the Model 8 was sport hunting. The Model 8 was used as a police gun, modified to use detachable extended capacity magazines, among other changes. While seeing limited use in World War I, it was used by the French Aéronautique Militaire[10] in very small numbers. It is noted as the rifle of choice by famed Texas Ranger Frank Hamer.[4]

Your comment of where I come from is prejudiced, totally uncalled for and inappropriate.

The BAR came late in 1918.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_B ... atic_rifle

And was not widely used by the military until 1938:

Although the weapon did see action in late 1918 during World War I, the BAR did not become standard issue in the US Army until 1938, when it was issued to squads as a portable light machine gun.

So in effect the early most common users of semiautomatic rifles were civilians as I noted.

Your comment of where I come from is prejudiced, totally uncalled for and inappropriate.

The US entered World War I with an inadequate, small, and obsolete assortment of domestic and foreign machine gun designs, due primarily to bureaucratic indecision and the lack of an established military doctrine for their employment. When the United States declaration of war on Germany was announced on 6 April 1917, the high command was made aware that to fight this trench war, dominated by machine-guns, they had on hand a mere 670 M1909 Benét–Merciés, 282 M1904 Maxims and 158 Colt-Browning M1895s.[7] After much debate, it was finally agreed that a rapid rearmament with domestic weapons would be required, but until that time, US troops would be issued whatever the French and British had to offer. The arms donated by the French were often second-rate or surplus and chambered in 8mm Lebel, further complicating logistics as machine gunners and infantrymen were issued different types of ammunition.[4]

SubRosa wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2024 6:22 pm And then came the immortal Browning M1917 belt-fed et al.

SR

tailgunner wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2024 6:46 pm

SubRosa wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2024 6:22 pm And then came the immortal Browning M1917 belt-fed et al.

SR

BKinzey wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2024 1:47 pm

tailgunner wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2024 6:46 pm

SubRosa wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2024 6:22 pm And then came the immortal Browning M1917 belt-fed et al.

SR

The comment was about semi automatic and you started talking about fully automatic.