In July 2025, Pennsylvania repealed one of its last remaining “blue laws” by passing House Bill 1431 (HB1431), ending the Commonwealth’s long-standing ban on Sunday hunting. Governor Josh Shapiro signed the measure into law as Act 36 of 2025, empowering the Pennsylvania Game Commission to include Sundays in its hunting seasons. While the bill is not without significant flaws, it represents an important recognition of a fundamental truth: The right to hunt is both God-given and constitutionally protected.
For too long, hunting in America has been treated as a regulated privilege rather than an unalienable right. From biblical scripture to the Ninth Amendment, the authority to hunt — to provide food and sustenance for one’s family — is woven into the fabric of our country and liberty itself. In 2022, there were approximately 14.4 million hunters in the United States, which equates to nearly five percent of the population. Efforts to regulate or restrict this right — whether through blue laws, bureaucratic mandates, ballot-box biology that embraces the evils of democracy in what should be a republican form of government, or politically motivated predator management and introductions that reduce hunting opportunities — infringe on the God-ordained freedom of the people, essentially imposing tyranny-of-the-majority policies.
HB1431 fully repealed Pennsylvania’s Sunday hunting ban and authorized the Game Commission to provide additional Sunday opportunities. On July 28, the commission approved 13 Sundays for the 2025-2026 season, ranging from mid-September to early December. These dates will allow hunters to pursue any in-season game, except for migratory birds. Notably, this bill was crafted with “zero input from sportsmen,” according to Representative David Maloney (R-Berks). Hunting on private land requires written landowner permission, while state forests are open to all on commission-approved Sundays. State parks will permit limited Sunday hunting on three dates in November.
The bill also contained several reforms, whether good, bad, or mixed:
While these reforms strengthen property rights and help preserve species, the latter is not the government’s job. The broader significance lies in the repeal of a blue law.
Supporters of the bill point to several positive outcomes:
Some aspects of the law are mixed:
Despite its advances, HB1431 also carries flaws:
Connecticut joined Pennsylvania in rolling back its blue laws in June 2025, when lawmakers passed Public Act 25-138 allowing Sunday hunting on private lands of 10 acres or more beginning October 1. The state wrongly gave greater hunting rights to large landowners over those with smaller properties, picking winners and losers, and the law still requires hunters to carry written landowner permission, remain at least 40 yards from public trails, and observe Sunday closures for migratory birds — rules that differ from Pennsylvania’s.
Even with these significant flaws, the measure marks a breakthrough after decades of restrictions. Advocates such as the National Wild Turkey Federation hailed the reform as a “victory for hunters, conservation and the future of our outdoor traditions.”
Yet lawmakers dodged the growing black-bear problem by stripping regulated bear hunting from SB1523, instead mandating another state “study” and pushing “nonlethal” solutions. Farmers may still obtain depredation permits to protect their herds, but the delay reveals the tension between liberty-minded wildlife management and leftist bureaucratic control. Even so, Connecticut’s limited repeal underscores that hunting is not a privilege, but a God-given and constitutionally protected right.
Depredation permits are indispensable for farmers facing the growing threats posed by bears, wolves, bobcats, mountain lions, cranes, and other predators. Without them, crops and livestock would be left vulnerable, creating severe economic losses and making it increasingly difficult for families to sustain themselves through agriculture. The relationship between wildlife management and agricultural health is direct: When top predators are shielded from hunting because of animal-rights activists and well-funded organizations, the natural balance collapses. Overprotected predator populations decimate game herds, leaving fewer opportunities for hunters to provide food for their families and more for predators — and, in turn, lessening the need to own a firearm. In both cases, liberty loses.
A prime example came before the 2024 election, when Colorado voters faced Proposition 127, a measure that would have banned the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx under the guise of prohibiting “trophy hunting.” (Currently, lynx are not legal to hunt anyway.) The initiative was defeated, with 54.7 percent voting “No” and 45.3 percent voting “Yes” — but only after millions of dollars and heavy involvement from outside special-interest groups. The campaign in favor of the ban, led by Cats Aren’t Trophies and supported by radical animal-rights groups such as Big Cat Rescue (founded by Carole Baskin, from the famous Netflix series Tiger King), Animal Wellness Action, and the Green Party of Colorado, raised more than $3.46 million. On the other side, organizations representing hunters, farmers, and property owners — including the Colorado Farm Bureau, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better, Western Heritage Conservation Alliance, and Safari Club International — fought back with roughly $2.1 million, warning of the measure’s devastating consequences for wildlife management, rural livelihoods, and the state’s economy.
The political fault lines were clear: Leftist-backed groups poured money into a campaign built on emotion, painting hunting as “inhumane” while ignoring its critical role in conservation and food security. Opponents rightly called the proposal “ballot-box biology” — the worst way to manage wildlife — because it bypassed science and local stewardship in favor of ideological activism. Had it passed, Proposition 127 would have stripped mountain lions of their big-game designation, ended compensation for livestock losses (a good thing, as laid out in the next paragraph), and criminalized long-standing hunting practices, effectively handing predator management over to the ballot box instead of trained wildlife professionals. Prior to the November 5 election, The John Birch Society issued an alert urging voters to reject Proposition 127, warning that “it is a major step toward eliminating the right to keep and bear arms, as well as property rights.”
As laid out in a previous article for The New American, Montana recently expanded its Livestock Loss Mitigation Program to cover bison killed by predators, shifting private losses onto taxpayers, a bill used in the Montana state Legislative Scorecard. While predators pose real threats to ranchers, subsidies only deepen dependence on government. The true solution is restoring landowners’ authority to manage predators without federal interference. As with wolves and grizzlies in Montana — where federal red tape blocks effective management — denying states and property owners the ability to control predator populations forces reliance on bureaucratic programs, instead of empowering stewardship rooted in property rights and local sovereignty. Montana should assert its sovereign authority to nullify unconstitutional laws under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, reminding the federal government that federal statutes and bureaucratic edicts cannot override the supreme law of the land. By reclaiming control of predator management, the state would both defend property rights and re-establish the proper balance of federalism intended by the Framers.
Moreover, America’s wildlife conservation is not funded by animal-rights activists or leftist environmentalists, but by hunters themselves through the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. This program — though unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8, since Congress was never delegated authority to regulate hunting or firearms — has funneled billions of dollars from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and hunting licenses into state wildlife management. It is sportsmen, not radical environmental groups, who shoulder the overwhelming share of conservation funding, supporting habitat restoration, species research, and disease prevention. An article by the National Rifle Association states, “It is estimated that while sportsmen and women currently provide roughly 80 percent of state wildlife conservation funding, this amount represents only 5 percent of what is needed.” Were hunting eliminated, this entire funding structure would collapse, leaving wildlife to suffer starvation, overpopulation, and disease. True stewardship does not come from emotional activism, but from those who responsibly hunt, fish, and manage the land.
The numbers prove the point. As the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation noted, “Chalk up another nearly one million reasons why hunting is conservation.” In 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service distributed $1.3 billion to states and territories for conservation, restoration, public access, and hunter education. Since its inception, the program has generated more than $17.7 billion, with hunters overwhelmingly supporting the program because they know their dollars directly sustain the resources they steward and love. Combined with license fees and contributions from groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation — which, constitutionally, states and private organizations (not the federal government) should oversee — sportsmen contribute roughly $1.6 billion annually. That is far more than animal-rights activists or leftist environmentalists, who contribute little beyond rhetoric. Without hunters, this conservation funding would vanish.
Equally troubling are the draconian depredation laws in place at the federal level, including 50 C.F.R. § 21.41, which states that farmers may shoot protected sandhill cranes to protect crops, but are prohibited from using the meat for food. Such policies foster waste and place animal life above human need. Responsible stewardship requires not only the protection of crops and livestock, but the ethical use of harvested resources. Lobbying groups continue to fight against any effort to manage crane populations. In Wisconsin, the International Crane Foundation has opposed every proposal that would allow a regulated harvest, even seeking to end depredation hunts altogether in favor of so-called “non-lethal” solutions. In one article, the group argued that “more sustainable solutions for farmers include ensuring that all corn seed is treated at the point of manufacture with Avipel or other deterrents to cranes and other wildlife that may prey on germinating corn or seeds.”
Scripture affirms that hunting is not only permissible, but an inherent part of man’s stewardship over creation.
Genesis 1:26 declares:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’”
After the Global Flood, God reinforced this mandate:
“Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (Genesis 9:3).
These passages, and many others, affirm that hunting is rooted in divine creation. To prohibit or unduly regulate hunting is to deny both God’s command of stewardship and the rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” These rights are derived from God and must be upheld.
Opponents of Sunday hunting often point to the Fourth Commandment: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). Christ Himself clarified the true purpose of the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27 records:
“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
When His disciples picked grain on the Sabbath to satisfy their hunger, the Pharisees accused them of violating the law (Matthew 12:1-2). Jesus responded by citing David’s actions (Matthew 12:3-6) and reminding them:
“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:7-8).
Providing food for one’s family is not a violation of the Sabbath, but an act consistent with God’s intent. One might argue that hunting on Sunday, like David’s eating of the consecrated bread, fulfills the law’s spirit of mercy and necessity. Today, generally, hunting is done for both recreation and sustenance; to relax, preserve, and retain food.
While we must keep His commandments and learn from Old Testament teachings, the Apostle Paul explains in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 that the old covenant, engraved in stone, was surpassed by the new covenant of the Spirit. To cling to man-made rules, such as blue laws against Sunday hunting, is to live under a veil that Christ has lifted. Freedom in Christ means embracing God’s mercy rather than legalistic burdens. Today, hunters generally spend more time talking with God and His creation. It’s a form of rest.
With that being said, the Sabbath must be honored along with the rest of His laws.
Pennsylvania’s Sunday hunting ban was rooted in Colonial blue laws, particularly Quaker traditions of enforced Sabbath observance — which, historically, was kept on Saturday. Scripture is clear that the seventh day, Saturday, was the only day ever set apart as the Sabbath. The shift to Sunday occurred centuries later. Catholic authorities admit that the change rests on church tradition rather than biblical command.
Pastor John Slotten of Wisconsin has served faithfully in the ministry for 34 years, beginning his study of the Bible in 1984. Over the decades, he has planted two churches, assisted in planting four more across the state, and successfully redeveloped a dozen struggling congregations that were on the verge of closing. His work extends well beyond church walls. Pastor Slotten has taken part in countless mission trips across the country and around the world, ministering in Africa, India, and the Middle East. He also served in disaster relief after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and has led six tours to Israel, guiding others through the land of Scripture.
Outside of ministry, Slotten is an accomplished hunter, fisherman, and outdoorsman, overwhelmingly more so than most hunters in the United States, recently harvesting a potential Boone and Crockett-record black bear in Minnesota. He has traveled extensively across North America in pursuit of game, providing food not only for his family, but for friends and neighbors. From venison burgers and Thanksgiving turkey to elk spaghetti and wild-game sloppy joes, he exemplifies the tradition of self-reliance and stewardship — living proof that hunting and fishing are not just hobbies, but God-given means of sustenance.
Among other questions, I asked Pastor Slotten about his views regarding hunting on the Sabbath, which critics often raise as a moral objection to Sunday hunting. “I believe it does not break the Sabbath if hunting is done in the right context. It should be a day of rejoicing within God’s creation. It should not be done as your work or job,” he explained, noting that even Christ’s disciples ate grain on the Sabbath and that Jesus Himself healed and taught on that day. “His response was not legalistic but loving, compassionate, caring, faithful, and spiritual. All the ways Jesus lived out the Sabbath … come back to Jesus living out that spiritual and physical needs can be met on the Sabbath.” Slotten emphasized that hunting can be consistent with keeping the Sabbath holy if it is approached with worship and reflection, concluding, “Make Jesus your Lord of the Sabbath while in the field or on the lake. Jesus will always consciously be my Lord whether I’m in the Church, in His creation, or in any home or place on the Sabbath.”
Slotten also draws a direct line between faith, liberty, and constitutionally protected rights. Asked whether hunting is protected under the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Ninth Amendment, he responded, “I believe hunting is a protected right under the Ninth Amendment as hunting and gathering have always been part of God’s provision for humankind since our creation. The Ninth Amendment gives us the fundamental right to maintain and retain these rights in which we have naturally always had…. Hunting and gathering has always been a natural right … and was never given up at the creation of our government. This should be vigorously maintained and defended. It should never be refined or diminished.”
Beyond the biblical and constitutional arguments, even popular hunting advocates follow Sunday ban laws. MeatEater and The MeatEater Podcast — one of the most popular outdoor media platforms in the United States, hosted by New York Times bestselling author Steven Rinella — have addressed Pennsylvania’s blue laws on multiple occasions, on the show and podcasts, arguing that hunters should be free to pursue game on Sundays. Known for its centrist political leanings, MeatEater embraces the importance of protecting and having access to public lands, affirms support for the Second Amendment, and unapologetically mocks the extremism of animal-rights activists — derisively labeled “New Jersey cat squirrel ladies.” At the same time, Rinella and his crew have opposed the dangers of “ballot-box biology,” essentially warning that wildlife management must remain rooted in science and stewardship, not emotion-driven campaigns.
In one episode (Season 10, Episode 4), Rinella recounted the burdens Sunday hunting restrictions placed on families during Pennsylvania’s flintlock muzzleloader season. With characteristic humor, he quipped that if hunters had to endure blue laws for generations, perhaps football fans should face the same burden: a century-long ban on Sunday football so they could understand what hunters had been forced to endure. Based in Bozeman, Montana, MeatEater has grown into a leading outdoor lifestyle company, reaching millions through its Netflix series, podcasts, and publications. Its message is clear: Hunting is not merely recreation, but part of man’s natural relationship with the land and a means of providing for one’s family — as it has been since the beginning of time. To them, the goal is not necessarily the biggest buck or the largest turkey, but simply putting meat in the freezer. In that sense, every harvest is a trophy, regardless of size.
This perspective, shared widely among outdoorsmen, underscores that repealing blue laws is not about undermining tradition, but preserving access, food security, and self-reliance. Their advocacy affirms that hunting is a natural right that should not be curtailed by man-made restrictions.
Even with the repeal of the Sunday ban, hunters remain burdened by state agencies. From license requirements and costs to seasonal limits, every aspect of hunting is micromanaged, creating rules that are difficult to understand. Such overregulation violates the Ninth Amendment’s recognition of unenumerated rights and the Fifth Amendment’s protection of property rights.
Government should protect property rights and ensure public safety, but it has no authority to dictate how free men secure food for their families. Each new layer of regulation undermines liberty and transforms hunters into subjects of bureaucracy rather than stewards of the land.
Groups such as the Sierra Club, Keystone Trails Association, and Pennsylvania Parks and Forest Foundation opposed HB1431, claiming that Sunday hunting would discourage hikers and horseback riders. Yet, according to the article, evidence shows that accidents involving non-hunters on weekends are virtually nonexistent. Hunting is heavily opposed by animal-rights activists, who also often align with leftist ideologies.
The real opposition is ideological. Hunters embody self-reliance, property rights, and resistance to government dependency — values directly opposed in the collectivist worldview of the Left.
Restrictions on hunting also serve a broader globalist aim: control of the food supply. The United Nations’ Agenda 2030, like its predecessor, Agenda 21, seeks to curtail individual use of natural resources, including food, under the guise of “sustainability.”
As The John Birch Society has long documented, Agenda 2030’s environmental controls are designed not to protect nature, but to limit human freedom. From restrictions on water and energy use to curbs on livestock and farming, the UN’s goal is global despotism under a one-world government. Controlling food access is central to this agenda.
By treating hunting as a privilege, state governments unwittingly advance this scheme. A people unable to feed themselves are dependent on the state — and easier to control. For instance, those on welfare and food stamps (i.e., SNAP) are under the control of government.
The right to hunt and fish is rooted in man’s God-given stewardship over creation, yet for most of our nation’s history, state governments have treated it as a privilege rather than a protected right. Vermont was the lone exception, enshrining this liberty in its 1777 constitution. Nearly 220 years later, as animal-rights activists gained influence and federal agencies expanded their grip over land and wildlife, Alabama voters took action. In 1996 they adopted the so-called “sportsperson’s bill of rights,” marking the beginning of a modern wave of constitutional amendments designed to safeguard hunting and fishing from legislative erosion and leftist activism.
That movement has since spread nationwide. As of November 2024, 24 states had guaranteed the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions. Alabama even strengthened its provision with a revised amendment in 2016. States such as Texas, Mississippi, Kansas, Indiana, North Carolina, and, most recently, Florida have followed suit, with Florida voters approving their amendment by nearly 67 percent of the vote in 2024. Only Arizona has ever rejected such a measure, underscoring the overwhelming public support across the country.
These amendments serve as a shield against “ballot-box biology” — the dangerous practice of democracy and letting emotional campaigns and well-funded activists dictate policy. James Madison once wrote, “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Colorado’s Proposition 127 is a case in point. While voters rejected it, the initiative highlighted how quickly long-standing rights can be targeted by special interests and radical organizations. By enshrining hunting and fishing in their constitutions, states place these liberties beyond the reach of fleeting political whims.
The Constitution itself affirms in the Ninth Amendment that unenumerated rights are “retained by the people.” By codifying the right to hunt and fish, states are doing precisely what the Founders envisioned: securing liberty against government intrusion and ensuring that free men cannot be severed from the land and resources God has given them.
To secure liberty, Americans must reaffirm hunting as a God-given right:
The New American and The John Birch Society oppose every form of government overreach that infringes upon God-given rights or strips landowners of their authority, violates the Second Amendment, or strips hunting rights from people. Americans must insist that legislators defend the Constitution by securing hunting and property rights — not surrender sovereignty to bureaucrats, global treaties, or activist-driven regulation.
To learn more about how your state and federal legislators vote on issues of constitutional importance, visit The New American’s Freedom Index and state Legislative Scorecards. You can also stay informed about what is happening in your state legislature and in Congress by signing up for legislative alerts here.