Protecting Hunting – Or Not  by Tom Reynolds

Hunting is recognized as a lawful purpose for firearm ownership under interpretations of Heller and Bruen.  Firearms commonly used for hunting are “arms in common use,” reinforcing their protection.

The ‘right to hunt’ refers to constitutional or statutory provisions that guarantee citizens the ability to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, typically subject to wildlife management regulations. “Right to Hunt” state constitutional amendments are intended to preserve hunting traditions, countering claims that hunting is merely a privilege.

According to the Observer, the “right to hunt” is recognized in 26 state constitutions as of February 2026.*

Why push for a “Right to Hunt” constitutional amendment in states?

Elevating hunting and fishing to constitutional status ensures that these activities can't be eliminated by a simple majority vote in a future legislature. Changing a constitution is possible, but it requires a much higher bar and broader consensus.

Colorado’s Amendment 83 was a ballot measure protecting hunting in Colorado by making it a constitutional right.  The measure recognized hunting and fishing “as the preferred way to manage the state’s wildlife.”  It failed to garner enough votes to pass on election night; the measure required 55% of the votes to pass.” It only received somewhere around 44 percent of the vote.

These ‘right to hunt’ amendments are a marker signaling support for our hunting heritage but they do not shield hunting and firearm ownership against regulation. 

Less than half of the Coloradans that voted see hunting – and by extension firearm ownership -vas worthy of constitutional protection.

About half of the states view hunting as worthy of protection.

Guess what state does not have a ‘Right to Hunt’ provision in its constitution?

* Right to hunt & fish belongs in NY Constitution - Observer Today