For Better and for Worse, “Direct Democracy” Seeks to Alter Gun and Hunting Policy

Not every important Second Amendment or hunting policy fight begins with a bill number. As voters begin casting their ballots now through November 3rd, they are not always simply choosing between candidates or parties. In many states, voters are asked to decide critical questions directly, including those involving constitutional rights, firearms, and hunting.

Recent headlines have rightfully been focused on major Second Amendment-related fights with attention naturally gravitating toward Congress, state legislatures, and the courts. But sometimes debates land directly on a ballot through initiatives, constitutional amendments, or referendums.

There is no single national model for how this works, as these efforts are creatures of state law and vary dramatically from state to state. Unfortunately, the devil is often in the details of the ballot process. Complicated procedures and wording battles can overshadow the substantive policy proposals, with gun control or anti-hunting advocates working to exploit that complexity in ways that may confuse voters on what exactly a “yes” or “no” vote means.

Take Massachusetts, for example, where voters will confront a hugely consequential firearms law question on their ballot this year. Question 9 is a full referendum on the sweeping 2024 law, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, which imposed extensive new requirements for firearm registration and serialization, expanded restrictions on so-called “assault weapons,” broadened the “red flag” firearm seizure laws, and restricted carrying lawful firearms in more places.

Unlike an initiative proposing a new law, Question 9 asks voters whether they want to see the newly enacted law repealed. The proposed ballot language straightforwardly required a “yes” vote to favor striking the law, and it received broad publicity in that format.

But the finalized version appearing on the ballot, after the intervention of the anti-gun attorney general’s office, now requires a “no” vote to repeal the law. The ballot question now asks:

Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on July 18^th, 2024, by a vote of 124 to 33 and approved by the Senate on July 18^th, 2024, by a vote of 35 to 5?

The counter intuitive wording creates an obvious risk of voter confusion. Massachusetts residents who support repealing this sweeping gun control law must remember the alliterative phrase, No on 9! For more on this effort, see NRA’s Armed Citizen Podcast interview with Gun Owner’s Action League’s Jim Wallace: TAC interviews Jim Wallace of Gun Owners Action League about Massachusetts.

In a more transparent ballot opportunity, voters in Colorado will have a chance to strengthen their hunting and fishing heritage through Amendment 83. In a critical time for hunters and anglers, with ongoing policy battles, this citizen-initiative measure would amend the Colorado state constitution to establish a right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife. This language is important in that it protects traditional methods of hunting while also declaring hunting and fishing as the state’s preferred means of responsibly managing wildlife. This offers significant protection against future efforts to restrict hunting; any such efforts would have to contend with an express constitutional protection rather than just ordinary political pressure. If approved, Colorado would join 24 other states that also provide for a constitutional right to hunt and fish.

Arkansas voters will also have an exciting opportunity to significantly expand the protection afforded by their state constitution’s right to keep and bear arms. Issue 2, a legislatively referred amendment, would go beyond the existing guarantees of arms for “common defense” by expressly protecting firearm ownership and use for hunting, recreation, and any other lawful purpose without limitation. Importantly, the amendment would extend constitutional protections to ammunition and firearm accessories while declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is a “natural, fundamental, and individual right that shall not be infringed.”

Lastly is the one facing Idaho voters, who are tasked with choosing the official state firearm! Voters will have the very difficult decision of choosing between the Winchester Model 1894 (.30-30); Winchester Model 1873 "Gun that Won the West" (.44-40); 1873 Colt Single Action Army Revolver "Peacemaker" (.45 Colt); M1 Garand rifle (.30-06); Colt M1911 .45 automatic Colt pistol (.45 ACP); or Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle (.30-06). While offering Idahoans a fun form of civic engagement, the measure serves the more serious function of signaling the embrace of Second Amendment rights as central to the state’s identity and values.

Whether good or bad, these measures are worth watching even when they are happening hundreds or thousands of miles away from your state. A proposal appearing on a ballot in one state may provide a road map for advocates elsewhere, test a new policy approach, or even preview what could happen in a nearby state. Voters should also pay close attention to how their state’s ballot initiative process works, as these measures often take years to reach Election Day. There are often meaningful opportunities along the way for citizens to get involved and help shape the debate long before the final language appears on the ballot.

So as voting is underway, be sure to read your ballot all the way to the end, front to back, as consequential questions about your rights may be waiting. Once you’ve finished choosing the people to create policy and defend your constitutional rights, you may find an opportunity to weigh in directly on important policy questions yourself.