A lot of gun-grabbers like to name-drop U.S. v. Miller while they're in the middle of some pious speech about how they respect our Second Amendment right to hunt ducks and maybe use the fowling piece to scare burglars off between seasons. This makes it obvious that they haven't read the decision, since Joe Biden's theoretical Perazzi has even less "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" than that Depression-era peckerwood's cut-down Stevens.
The Second Amedment doesn't read "A well-taxidermied deer head being necessary to the security of a free state...", which brings us to the latest decision coming out of Pennsylvania, where a judge ruled that
...she could find no proof that courts have extended Second Amendment protections to include recreational hunting.And it's true. As commenter Geodkyt pointed out over there, if there's a constitutional protection to be found for hunting, it's in the Ninth or Tenth Amendment, or maybe... maybe in some fancy-dan penumbra emanating from our enumerated right to own M249 Squad Automatic Weapons to shoot invaders and tyrants and keep the King of England out of our face. After all, it could be argued that using them on deer would keep one sharp and skilled and would therefore help fulfill the actual purpose of the Second Amendment.