For ages, the Left has used ballot initiatives to subvert the republican system of government that our Founding Fathers envisioned, though thankfully only at the state level. They wanted direct democracy because they were convinced it would benefit them. Unfortunately, they've been largely correct.
But the issue with direct democracy is that two sides can play that game. While I'm not a fan of ballot initiatives, I am a fan of fighting fire with fire.
The Trace, however, seems a bit put out. It published a piece about the four ballot measures up for a vote on Tuesday, and none of them are anti-gun.
It talked about the Massachusetts ballot initiative, which seeks to repeal a set of recently passed state laws, which we've talked about quite a lot. It also talks about a Colorado pro-hunting initiative, which isn't quite pro-gun, but is pro-gun adjacent, in my book.
But then we get to the fun ones.
Arkansas
Arkansas voters will consider “Issue 2, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment,” which would amend the state Constitution to “provide a right to possess and use ammunition, firearm accessories, and firearm components without limitation.” It would also add language that the right to keep and bear arms is “a natural, fundamental, and individual right that shall not be infringed.”
Lawmakers put forward the initiative. Republican State Representative Matt Duffield proposed the measure in April 2025 with an eight-minute speech in support of the right to bear arms, which he called “a citizen’s last line of defense against tyranny” and “part of our nation’s DNA.”
Forty-five states explicitly establish the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions. That includes Arkansas, which passed its state-level Second Amendment in 1868. The proposed initiative, if approved, would augment the 1868 amendment. If the initiative is defeated, the 158-year-old language would remain as-is. Pollsters expect the initiative to pass overwhelmingly.
Gun violence prevention advocates testified at the General Assembly last year that the “without limitation” part of the proposed initiative could be used to challenge state laws prohibiting felons and domestic abusers from owning guns.
Absolutely beautiful.
This isn't just a cosmetic change in the language, either. Right now, we've got judges out there that are taking the term "arms" and trying to narrow it as much as humanly possible, thus permitting them to uphold bans on things like magazines that hold more than a few rounds or suppressors. While that's not likely to happen in Arkansas anytime soon, constitutions aren't written for the day they're written, but for years into the future.
We haven't given a lot of press on this, but this could be huge for Arkansas, especially as anti-gunners flee the hellhole states they currently live in for better living, only to try and change the laws and reshape their new homes into the kind of states they just left.
The fact that this is expected to pass "overwhelmingly" is a good sign, but it's a better sign that this is on the agenda in the first place and could preserve not just the right to keep and bear arms at the state level, but also makes it clear that the other items that feed into the right are equally protected.
Then we get this one that means little except as an amusement.
Idaho
Idaho voters will be able to choose a state gun, similar to how states have state symbols like birds, flowers, fish, and so on.
In 2011, Utah became the first state to designate a state gun: the Browning model M1911 semiautomatic pistol. Since then, 10 other states have followed suit: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, and Missouri.
The Idaho Official State Gun Question, sponsored by the state Legislature, will give voters six options, which include four rifles and two handguns. No word on which model is in the lead. The state Legislature will need to approve the winner in a separate law after the election.
Basically, my understanding is that this is nothing but a way to get people to the polls to vote. It doesn't actually mean much of anything in the grand scheme of things, but I'd love to see all 50 states have a state gun. Unfortunately, there are too many anti-gun states out there for that to happen, but those which aren't anti-gun should definitely do this.
Again, it doesn't change anything; it's just awesome.
But each of these needs to pass, though Idaho's is just about the choice. They need to pass because our rights depend on these, even if it's just about hunting, because hunting might not be mentioned in the Second Amendment, but if it's a wedge we can use to protect the right to keep and bear arms in a state like Colorado, I'll take it.