Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
AttemptedSecond Amendment / Public lands

Committed to end restrictions on Second Amendment rights on federal (Army Corps of Engineers) land through the Recreational Lands Defense Act.

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 verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

AttemptedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 85%

Both cited sources were fetched and verify the ATTEMPTED rating. The Lummis official press release (PRIMARY) is reachable and confirms she introduced the "Recreational Lands Defense Act" on 2021-10-12 — the exact legislative vehicle named in the promise, addressing Second Amendment rights on Army Corps of Engineers land; the cited quote ("For decades, Americans' Second Amendment rights have been checked at the entrance to federal land under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers management") appears verbatim, and the page documents introduction only, not enactment. The Military Times article (REPUTABLE_SECONDARY) is reachable; its cited quote's leading text appears verbatim, and it confirms the Corps' proposed rule was never implemented and that firearms restrictions remain in effect as of May 2026 — establishing that the substantive goal was not achieved. She took the promised action (introduced the bill) but it failed to end the restrictions, which is precisely ATTEMPTED — not FULL/CHAMPIONED (goal not reached) and not IGNORED/NO_OPPORTUNITY (she did act). The secondary source does not name Lummis, but it is used to establish outcome status rather than the promise action, which the primary source establishes. No quote is fabricated, both URLs resolve, and the outcome does not overstate the evidence.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See 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 arguments

These 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.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →