There dissent points out that the 1787 Federal Constitution has very similar firearm language to the 1776 PA constitution except that language about hunting was dropped. Stevens gets away with this lie by quoting both parts in the same paragraph. But the first quote is from The Declaration of Rights and the hunting part is from pages later in the Plan or Frame of Government for the Commonwealth. There are 45 items between them, you can go read it yourself. Here is the confabulating quote from the dissent:
The parallels between the 2nd Amendment and these state declarations, and the 2nd Amendment's omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civial uses at the time. [PA's] 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state," [and also that] "the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed."Well yes, but the "right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" immediately follows the "right to free speech." On the other hand the "right to hunt fowl" comes immediately after "The right of every foreigner" to become a citizen after one year of residence and to run for office after two years of residence.
Not the same ballpark. Not even the same game.
I suppose you could take this to mean that it is legal to prohibit hunting but not self defense. I don't see how this helps the dissent because those in favor of gun control say they don't want to control hunting but do want to control self-defense. The D.C. case is all about self defense and not hunting - unless there is a deer herd on the mall I don't know about.