By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Massachusetts: 2026 Firearms referendum campaign; ATF Open Letter regarding short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any other weapon[s]” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). ATF ; The DOJ Sept. 17 memorandum declaring sales ban for young adults unconstitutional challenged by 174 members of Congress: Politics 2026: This week’s TheReload covers political fundraising disparities.
State Legislatures: Still in session:
States running through to Dec. 31: Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio. Pennsylvania session runs through Nov. 30.
Massachusetts: 2026 Firearms referendum campaign
An Oct. 9 Boston.com report examined the referendum over Chapter 135, Massachusetts’s 2024 firearms legislation. A “yes” vote would retain the law; a “no” vote would repeal it. The report describes a dispute encompassing expanded assault-style firearm restrictions, serialization requirements, licensing changes, sensitive-place rules, and expanded eligibility to seek extreme-risk protection orders.
- Why it matters: The referendum could change several interconnected parts of Massachusetts firearms regulation through the ballot rather than adjudication. For civil-rights analysis, the reported dispute brings together access to firearms, licensing discretion, privacy, and procedural protections surrounding firearm removal; the article presents opposing campaign arguments rather than resolving their constitutional merits.
Weekly Second Amendment national developments
Reporting period: Oct. 5–9.
ATF Open Letter regarding short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any other weapon[s]” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). ATF
The week’s most important development was DOJ and ATF’s nationwide campaign to not enforce several National Firearms Act requirements for suppressors and certain other firearms. The central legal distinction is scope: the underlying district-court injunction protected specified plaintiffs, while the October 9 administrative policy extends nonenforcement more broadly; neither eliminates applicable state restrictions.
The ATF OPEN LETTER TO ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES AND THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT MAKING AND TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN FIREARMS AND DEVICES of October 9, 2026. The letter states:
Consequently, effective Oct. 9, ATF will no longer require individuals to seek ATF approval under the NFA before making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any other weapon[s]” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). ATF will also no longer require such items to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. These policies apply uniformly to anyone otherwise subject to these requirements, not just to the plaintiffs in the litigation.
The DOJ September 17th memorandum declaring sales ban for young adults unconstitutional challenged by 174 members of Congress
A letter dated Oct. 7, but publicized Oct. 8 by Representatives Mike Thompson, Jamie Raskin, and Lucy McBath, three active anti-Second Amendment activists, called on DOJ to rescind its position that federal restrictions on licensed-dealer handgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds may not be enforced. Thompson’s office described the letter as bipartisan and supported by 174 members. The dispute targets DOJ’s September legal opinion addressing 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1); the letter is congressional oversight activity, not passage of legislation.mikethompson.
Why it matters: The confrontation concerns both young adults’ Second Amendment rights and the executive branch’s authority to decline enforcement of an enacted firearms restriction. The members’ assertions that DOJ acted unlawfully is the legal position of the 174 members, not an action by the House of Representatives. In concert with the letter announcement, the three largest anti-Second Amendment organizations—Everytown for Gun Safety, GIFFORDS, and Brady—provided public statements supporting the representatives’ opposition to DOJ’s position.
Politics 2026
From Monday, Oct. 12 to Election Day—Tuesday, Nov. 3—is 22 days. That excludes October 12 itself; counting both dates gives 23 calendar days.
By October 12, early in-person voting or its equivalent will have begun in at least 15 states, counting in-person absentee voting and Pennsylvania’s county-based, on-demand mail-ballot voting. This is not a count of every state that has begun mailing absentee ballots.
This week’s copy of TheReload. reports a substantial financial advantage for gun-control PACs in the 2026 midterm cycle: Everytown, Giffords, and Brady collectively spent $9.7 million, compared with $3.8 million for the NRA, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and National Association for Gun Rights. Everytown and Giffords also announced $10 million each in additional advertising plans. The article was written by Julie Miller and published Oct. 8.
Fundraising and cash available
The article’s overall comparison which generally reflect filings through August 2026:
| Financial measure | Three gun-control PACs | Three gun-rights PACs |
| Receipts/fundraising during the cycle | Nearly $18.8 million | $5.8 million |
| Spending to date | $9.7 million | $3.8 million |
| Cash remaining | Just over $13 million | $3.8 million |
What this matters in 2026 and beyond
Miller describes a reversal of the NRA’s former financial dominance. The NRA had raised nearly $20 million in each of the previous three midterm cycles, but its current PAC receipts are slightly under $4.8 million. The article attributes the organization’s deterioration to the prolonged corruption scandal involving former CEO Wayne LaPierre, while noting that NRA insiders say its overall finances have stabilized under reform leadership. No other gun-rights organization has filled the resulting political-fundraising gap.
As a former NRA-ILA Executive Director, I see a roughly 75% drop in NRA PAC fundraising as an alarm the Second Amendment community cannot afford to ignore. The representatives and senators who have stood up for gun owners are getting less financial backing and less of the grassroots support that helps them win elections and legislative fights. We will pay for that weakness in Congress and state legislatures. Over the past decade, the Second Amendment community has devoted substantial resources to successful—but costly—litigation in federal and state courts. Those battles matter. But courtroom victories cannot replace political strength. Neglect the political front, and the consequences will last for years.
I helped wage two successful statewide referendum campaigns. I know what it takes to win: money, organization, and sustained grassroots work. Yet the referendum described at the outset of this report appears to be getting little attention from pro-gun groups. That is a serious mistake. Political advocacy and litigation are two sides of the same coin. We cannot afford to fund one and neglect the other. It will haunt us for years to come.
