By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Tuesday, Nov. 3 is election day; If you have not voted already, Do so tomorrow!! Arkansas: Voters will decide whether to broaden the state constitutional arms guarantee; Massachusetts: Voters will decide by voting on a referendum on its comprehensive firearms law; Oregon: City of Portland:—Portland removes concealed-license defense for designated government-meeting buildings: Ordinance No. 192245; Ohio: Ohio attorney general’s request: Wilson’s request that lawmakers reconcile state firearms restrictions with changes in federal approval requirements; 16 States’ relationship to the National Firearms Act’s federal approval and registration system; Election Analysis: Guns, Hunting, and the Politics of the Midterms.
State Legislatures: Still in Session:
States in session through Dec. 31: Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio. Pennsylvania’s session runs through Nov. 30, 2027. These legislatures may return to session after the election.
Statewide Referenda 2026
Election Day 2026
Arkansas: Voters will decide whether to broaden the state constitutional arms guarantee.
Issue 2: A legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would expressly extend the state arms guarantee to lawful hunting, recreation, and other lawful purposes and specify that it includes ammunition, firearm accessories, and components is on the ballot Nov. 3. The proposal would also describe the right as “natural, fundamental, and individual”; supporters and opponents disagree about how that language would affect future regulatory challenges, but those predictions are not established judicial interpretations. The measure was referred by the legislature in 2025, so its inclusion here reflects the approaching vote and current reporting, not new legislative action this week.
- Status and next step: Voters decide Nov. 3; approval would make the amendment effective Jan. 1, 2027.
Massachusetts: Voters will decide by voting on a referendum on its comprehensive firearms law
The Nov. 3 ballot includes a vote on Question 9, which asks voters whether to retain or repeal the state’s 2024 firearms legislation. The secretary of the Commonwealth’s official summary confirms that a “yes” vote retains the law and a “no” vote repeals it; the law addresses privately made firearms and serialization, licensing, extreme-risk orders, prohibited weapons and devices, and carrying in specified locations.
Oregon: City of Portland:—Portland removes concealed-license defense for designated government-meeting buildings: Ordinance No. 192245 — Portland City Council, Oct. 28: The council voted 12–0 to amend city ordinances so that the state-law affirmative defense for concealed-handgun-license holders will no longer apply in certain city-owned or controlled buildings used for official government meetings. The ordinance implements authority provided by Oregon’s earlier SB 243 and requires administrative rules identifying covered buildings, entryway signs, website notice, and progressive enforcement procedures. Its practical reach depends on those implementation measures: the ordinance expressly provides that a building designation does not take effect until the required signage and online notice are posted
- Status and next step: Passed as amended; administrative designation and notice are the next implementation steps identified in the ordinance.
Ohio: Ohio attorney general’s request
On Oct. 23, Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson’s requested that lawmakers reconcile state firearms restrictions with changes in federal approval requirements. Another state official adds his name to the growing list of state officials suggesting that state laws
- As of Oct. 31, officials in four states—I have identified officials in four states—Alaska, Mississippi, Montana, and Ohio—who have publicly called for their legislatures to address state restrictions on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and .certain firearms classified as “other weapons. Their positions differ: Montana and Mississippi officials are seeking specific statutory rollbacks; Alaska and Ohio officials are asking lawmakers to resolve uncertainty created by changes in federal enforcement law.
16 States’ relationship to the National Firearms Act’s federal approval and registration system
As we noted in the Ohio section above, there is a common issue in the relationship between state criminal statutes and the National Firearms Act’s federal approval and registration system. Ohio’s announcement and Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch’s written statement identified that § 97-37-31, titled “Silencers on firearms; manufacture, sale, possession or use unlawful.” That section prohibits making, manufacturing, selling, or possessing suppressors unless “duly authorized under federal law.” She interprets the current language as making ATF Form 4 voluntary following ATF’s guidance, but wants legislation to provide a lasting solution. Her identified state-law proposals focus specifically on suppressors; they should not be described as a comprehensive short-barreled-rifle repeal package. The agency would no longer enforce certain advance-approval and registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain firearms classified as “any other weapons.” State statutes referencing that federal system do not necessarily change alongside federal enforcement policy.
The officials’ responses illustrate different approaches:
- Legislative repeal of state-level requirements: Knudsen and the Montana legislators are pursuing removal of the state restrictions tied to the federal process.
- Interpretive relief followed by statutory amendment: Fitch concludes that Mississippi’s existing suppressor statute permits voluntary Form 4 submission, while seeking amendments to remove uncertainty and address the separate concealed-carry provision.
- Legislative clarification with interim caution: Mills and Wilson emphasize the risk that state criminal provisions remain operative despite federal nonenforcement. Mills has urged consultation with prosecutors; Wilson has warned owners about potential state prosecution.
- A particularly important distinction for understanding this is that federal nonenforcement is not the same as congressional repeal. Mississippi’s Fitch expressly cautioned that an administrative position expressed through guidance could be reversed by a later administration—one reason she is pursuing permanent statutory changes.
Scope and limits of this list
These four states are first to have state officials themselves requesting state legislative action. This is not an exhaustive fifty-state inventory.
While the Firearms Policy Coalition has urged officials in 15 states to stop enforcing state laws tied to the federal registration system and to pursue permanent legislative changes: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Finally, “other accessories” is broader than the proposals documented here. The identified efforts principally concern suppressors and short-barreled firearms; the announcements cited do not establish a general campaign by any of the listed state officials covering magazines, bump stocks, or firearm accessories.
Guns, Hunting, and the Politics of the Midterms
At the end of an election season the last week’s competing messages are loud, insistent, and often annoying. An analysis of the messaging from the pro-Second Amendment and opposing organizations shows the same biases as ever. Gun-rights advocates frame the election as a defense of constitutional liberty, even while acknowledging that firearms are not dominating the campaign. Some Democratic candidates emphasize gun ownership and hunting as evidence of cultural connection with rural voters. Wildlife-focused commentary asks a different question: whether protecting hunting through constitutional amendments may limit future conservation and wildlife-management choices. The common thread is identity—but the policy consequences differ substantially across these arguments. The competing methods splits into three different ways of treating election analysis: Opinion and Campaign reporting,
Opinion and advocacy
- The Washington Examiner takes up the banner of Constitutional rights.“The Second Amendment is on the ballot in Texas and Michigan,” published Oct. 27, presents the Senate elections in those states as consequential for future federal firearms policy. The commentary criticizes Democratic candidates James Talarico and Abdul El-Sayed and treats Republican Senate control as protection against additional restrictions. Its purpose is electoral mobilization: gun-rights supporters should vote as though their rights are at stake, whether or not firearms are receiving extensive campaign attention.
- NRA: Keeping an established constituency engaged
The Oct. 28 American Rifleman commentary, “Standing Guard | A Midterm Case for Freedom,” similarly urges gun-rights voters to remain engaged. It acknowledges that firearms and the Second Amendment are not polling as central midterm issues, while crediting policies it describes as “pro-freedom” for recent successes. That combination produces a distinctive campaign argument: supporters should reward favorable policies and preserve their gains rather than assume that a quieter political environment makes participation less important.
- Mother Jones: Hunting rights and the limits of wildlife policy
“Wild Animals Can’t Vote. Here’s Where They’re on the Ballot Anyway,” published Oct. 30, approaches the election through wildlife-related ballot measures rather than the usual gun-control debate. An unusual tactic for Mother Jones, which is known for its distinct anti-Second Amendment style and analysis. This discussion of a proposed constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife by traditional methods highlights divisions that do not fit neatly into a hunter-versus-nonhunter framework. Since many hunters consider themselves conservationist and support restrictions they regard as consistent with ethical wildlife management.
The article therefore complicates the political meaning of “protecting hunting.” One constituency may understand that phrase as protecting a tradition against future restrictions; another may question whether broadly worded constitutional protections would interfere with decisions about conservation or permissible hunting methods. The disagreement concerns the legal structure governing wildlife management, not simply support for or opposition to hunting.
Outdoor News
- Adding to the wildlife policy debate comes an article in Outdoor News by avid Elk hunter Randy Newberg
Randy Newberg’s “Hunting and fishing need your voice—and your vote this November,” published by Outdoor News on Oct. 22, Newberg urges voters to evaluate candidates’ records on public access, clean water, conservation, and wildlife management rather than rely on party labels. It appears that he is trying to broaden hunter’s prime view from a Second Amendment perspective.
His argument attempts to broaden the political agenda associated with hunting. Firearm ownership is part of the discussion, but so are the places people hunt and fish, the condition of those places, and the management decisions that sustain those activities. In that respect, Newberg offers an alternative to treating “the hunting vote” as a straightforward extension of the gun-rights vote.
Campaign reporting
NBC: Gun ownership as a bridge to rural voters
NBC’s Oct. 28 reporting, “Democratic candidates emphasize their support for gun rights in tight midterm races,” and its companion Politics Desk analysis, “Meet the Democrats trying to flip the script on gun rights,” describe candidates seeking to challenge the assumption that Democratic identity implies unfamiliarity with—or hostility toward—firearms. The coverage features Wisconsin congressional candidate Mitchell Berman and Texas candidate Bobby Pulido, who emphasize their experience with firearms, hunting, and rural life.
This is a different electoral strategy from the gun-rights organizations’ turnout appeal. Rather than beginning with the threat of restrictive legislation, these candidates begin with cultural credibility: familiarity with guns and hunting becomes a way to establish that they understand the communities they seek to represent. That presentation does not, by itself, establish agreement with Republicans on particular firearm regulations.
The NBC editors fail to recognize this was the way in which Democrats from Maine to California used to campaign before the Democrat party made its 90 degree swing to anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment hostility around the turn of the twenty-first century.
The Trace: Spending does not necessarily equal voter salience
The Trace’s Oct. 29 analysis, “How Much Money Are Gun Groups Pouring Into the 2026 Midterms?,” reports that gun control organizations are outspending gun-rights groups—a reversal of the pattern a decade earlier. At the same time, the article notes that gun violence has not been a dominant election issue.
The juxtaposition matters. Campaign spending measures what organizations are investing in an election, not necessarily what most voters consider decisive. The spending imbalance is therefore evidence of differing organizational resources and electoral commitments, but it should not be treated as proof that gun-reform arguments are controlling the campaign or determining its outcome.
In this article The Trace is taking a lap around the course that it believes it has already won. Since the anti-gun groups such as Everytown, Giffords, and Brady has all intertwined their political fundraising with ActBlue the Democrat’s fundraising organization, they are all working for a Democrat takeover of the Congress. The Trace is known as a “gun violence” and anti-Second Amendment focused newsroom that receives funding from Everytown for Gun Safety’s nonpolitical arm.
In my view, its framing is hostile to a robust understanding of the Second Amendment and too often treats lawful gun ownership as a criminal-policy problem rather than a constitutional right. Bearing Arms writer Cam Edwards, for example, criticizes The Trace for relaying allegations that gun-industry contributions corrupt Republicans without applying equivalent scrutiny to gun-control organizations’ contributions to Democrats. That is a specific allegation of inconsistent framing rather than a demonstrated assessment of all its reporting.
NPR: A close national division conceals a sharp partisan split
NPR’s Oct. 27 polling analysis reports that 48% of respondents prioritized stricter gun-control laws, while 46% prioritized protecting Americans’ right to own guns. Beneath that close national division lay a much stronger partisan separation: roughly nine in ten Democrats favored the gun-control priority, while 85% of Republicans favored the gun-rights priority. Independents were largely divided. These figures concern competing priorities, not support for any particular legislative proposal.
The polling helps explain why different campaigns can draw sharply different lessons from the same political environment. Gun-rights organizations have a strongly aligned Republican constituency to mobilize, while Democrats seeking crossover support have an incentive to distinguish their own relationship with firearms from national party stereotypes. Neither the poll nor the campaign coverage demonstrates that either strategy will succeed.
Review: Several electoral arguments, not one firearms debate. Rights protection and cultural recognition serve different purposes
The Examiner and NRA pieces ask voters to protect a policy position through turnout and partisan control. NBC’s coverage describes candidates asking voters to recognize a shared culture before judging their policy positions. Both approaches invoke firearms, but they use them differently: one emphasizes the consequences of government action; the other emphasizes the candidate’s relationship to a community.
That distinction is important when evaluating campaign messages. A hunting photograph or account of gun ownership may communicate familiarity and respect without resolving a candidate’s position on background checks, firearm classifications, or other regulations. Conversely, an organization’s endorsement may identify policy alignment without saying much about a candidate’s personal participation in hunting or shooting. The week’s coverage is most informative when cultural claims and legislative commitments remain separate categories.
Hunting does not produce a single political constituency
Mother Jones and Newberg, despite their different approaches, both resist reducing hunting politics to a simple contest between gun owners and gun-control advocates. Mother Jones emphasizes disputes over constitutional language and wildlife-management authority. Newberg emphasizes access, habitat, water, and conservation. Together, they show why a voter can support hunting while questioning a particular hunting-rights amendment—or judge a candidate’s hunting record by land and resource policy rather than firearms policy alone.
For legal analysis, the distinction is equally significant. A constitutional right-to-hunt proposal, a firearm regulation, and a public-access policy may appeal to overlapping audiences, but they govern different activities and raise different legal questions. Grouping them under a single “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” label can obscure the actual dispute.
Lower visibility does not mean political agreement
The NRA’s acknowledgment that guns are not a central campaign issue, The Trace’s spending analysis, and NPR’s polling are not contradictory. They describe different dimensions of electoral politics: how prominently an issue features in the campaign, how much organizations spend on it, and how voters divide when asked about it. An issue can receive substantial organizational investment and remain sharply polarized without becoming the electorate’s leading concern.
Conclusion: No election predictions
Read together, the week’s pieces show an election in which firearms and hunting function as constitutional commitments, cultural signals, organizational causes, and resource-management questions. The most useful political analysis does not collapse those roles into a single debate. It asks which audience each message seeks to reach, which government decision is actually at stake, and whether the message offers evidence of a policy commitment—or primarily a claim of belonging.
For pro-Second Amendment citizens it means that vigilance is still the most important part of being a citizen. The right to vote depends on an educated citizenry and understanding candidates’ positions on the issues is a full time job.
