“Pledges to continue opposing all efforts to weaken Second Amendment rights.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Upheld as FULL. The promise pledges to continue opposing all efforts to weaken Second Amendment rights (i.e., gun-control legislation). Two of the three cited primary sources were fetched and directly confirm outcome-level actions: (1) Senate roll call 117-2-00242 shows the Motion to Concur on S.2938 (Bipartisan Safer Communities Act) agreed to 65-33-2 with Crapo voting Nay; (2) Senate roll call 113-1-00097 shows the Manchin-Toomey background-check Amdt. 715 to S.649 rejected 54-46 with Crapo voting Nay. Both quotes in the rating accurately reflect the vote pages. The third cited source (Congress.gov S.65) returned HTTP 403 (an anti-bot block, not a missing page), but Crapo's cosponsorship of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025 is independently corroborated by two reachable sources (Cornyn's official Senate press release and BillTrack50), both explicitly listing Mike Crapo among the cosponsors. These are recorded votes and a bill cosponsorship, not mere statements, so they document the pledged behavior. FULL rather than CHAMPIONED is correct: Crapo voted against gun-control bills and cosponsored (did not author or lead) pro-2A legislation, so he contributed consistent opposition without driving it — no evidence of the sponsorship/authorship/leadership CHAMPIONED requires. The outcome is not overstated: multiple corroborating records span nearly a decade with no contrary votes found. Confidence slightly below the original 0.9 only because the S.65 primary URL was not directly reachable, though its substance is fully corroborated.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.