Arkansas expands gun rights; Massachusetts keeps its gun law

As of 2:58 p.m. ET, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2026

Arkansas voters approved a constitutional amendment expanding the state's right to keep and bear arms, and Massachusetts voters chose to keep the state's 2024 gun law, according to race calls by The Associated Press and unofficial returns. Neither result has been certified.

Arkansas Issue 2 passes

The AP declared Issue 2 passed at about 9 p.m. Tuesday, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported. With 99% of the vote counted, unofficial returns early Wednesday showed 612,343 votes for the amendment and 252,638 against, or about 70.8% in favor, according to the newspaper. The Arkansas Advocate, citing results from the secretary of state's office, put support at 70%.

The amendment rewrites Article 2, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution. It adds "lawful hunting and recreational use and any other lawful purpose" to the right's stated purposes, says the right "includes without limitation the possession and use of ammunition, firearm accessories and firearm components," and declares it "a natural, fundamental, and individual right that shall not be infringed." It takes effect Jan. 1, 2027.

The measure's sponsors say it is needed to better protect the right to keep and bear arms, while critics argue it would make gun safety regulations harder to put in place, the Advocate reported.

Massachusetts keeps its 2024 law

On Question 9, a "yes" vote kept the 2024 law and a "no" vote would have repealed it. Voters approved Question 9, rejecting the repeal effort, according to the AP's race call as reported by WBUR. About 67% voted "yes," the AP reported, according to NBC Boston and the State House News Service. The results are unofficial; the Secretary of the Commonwealth publishes results after certification.

All of the law's regulations remain in effect, including firearm registration, limits on untraceable "ghost guns," an expanded "red flag" law and live-fire training for permit applicants, WBUR reported. Gun rights advocates are also challenging the law in court, and those lawsuits are ongoing.

"This victory belongs to the people of Massachusetts, who through their votes said a resounding yes to protecting this legislation and keeping our communities safe from gun violence," said Ruth Zakarin, chair of Yes on 9 for a Safe Massachusetts, according to WBUR. Opponents had argued that the law is confusing, damages hunting traditions and puts an undue burden of enforcement on local police departments.

Colorado hunting measure trails

In Colorado, Amendment 83, which would have added a right to hunt and fish to the state constitution, was well short of the 55% it needs to pass in unofficial results from the secretary of state late Tuesday, with about 44% support, the Summit Daily reported. Dan Gates, a leading supporter, conceded that the measure appeared to have failed, the newspaper said.

The explainer below was published before the vote on Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Massachusetts Question 9: keep or repeal the 2024 gun law

Question 9 asks Massachusetts voters whether to keep An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, which the state House passed 124-33 and the Senate passed 35-5 on July 18, 2024, according to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's voter information page. A "yes" vote "would keep in place the law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons." A "no" vote "would repeal this law."

According to the official summary, the law penalizes possessing, making and transferring untraceable "ghost guns," including 3D-printed guns, and requires most firearms to carry serial numbers. It lets school administrators and licensed health care providers ask a court for an extreme risk protection order, and it bars carrying guns in government buildings, polling places and schools, with some exceptions.

Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts says in its official ballot argument that a yes vote "will keep in place Massachusetts' lifesaving 2024 gun safety law." The Civil Rights Coalition, which leads the repeal effort, argues the state "already had some of the strictest gun laws in the country" and calls the law, known as Chapter 135, "a deeply flawed, 116-page piece of bureaucratic overreach." The commonwealth does not endorse either argument or certify its accuracy, the page says.

Commonwealth Second Amendment president Christopher Martel, who backs repeal, told The Harvard Crimson that criminals "will simply ignore bureaucratic mandates like registration, serialization, and mandatory live-fire safety exams." State Sen. Cynthia Creem, who helped pass the law, told the Crimson she did not "see any reason why we should not continue" with it.

The state's fiscal statement says Massachusetts has made "significant investments" to carry out the law, and repeal "would require the Commonwealth to expend resources in suspending or re-directing those investments."

Arkansas Issue 2: right to keep and bear arms

Issue 2, referred to voters by the Legislature, would rewrite Article 2, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution, according to the measure's text published by the Arkansas Secretary of State. The section now says citizens "shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense," according to the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service's voter guide.

The amendment would add "lawful hunting and recreational use" and "any other lawful purpose," and would say the right "includes without limitation the possession and use of" ammunition, firearm accessories and firearm components. It would also declare the right "a natural, fundamental, and individual right that shall not be infringed." If approved, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2027, according to the text.

Supporters quoted in the extension service's guide say the change spells out that "arms" includes ammunition, components and accessories, and that clearer language means fewer court fights. Opponents quoted in the guide say the state constitution already protects an individual right to bear arms and that the "without limitation" wording "could open the door to legal challenges," including to laws barring gun possession by people convicted of serious crimes. The guide says no opposition committee had filed with the Arkansas Ethics Commission as of Oct. 20. The university does not endorse those statements, the guide says.

Colorado Amendment 83: right to hunt and fish

Colorado's Amendment 83 is not a gun-regulation measure. The citizen initiative would establish a state constitutional right to hunt and fish certain wildlife and make hunting and fishing the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations, according to the Legislative Council's ballot analysis. It needs 55% of the vote to pass.

The right would cover traditional methods and would not apply to nongame species, endangered species or species that are illegal to hunt under federal law, the analysis says. The state could still regulate for "sound scientific reasons," public safety or to preserve future hunting and fishing, and the measure makes no immediate change to existing law.

Supporters argue in the state's Blue Book that it "provides lasting protection against future attempts to restrict or eliminate hunting and fishing." Opponents argue that the constitution "should protect fundamental rights and not recreational activities" and that "undefined, vague language could prompt costly legal challenges." The fiscal analysis says the measure could increase the state's legal costs.