Senator Murphy Pushes Democrats to Welcome Pro-Gun Voters

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, long the Democrats’ most visible champion of stricter gun laws, is now urging his party to make room for candidates who don’t toe the gun-control line. As Jake Fogleman reports at The Reload, Murphy told a recent audience that “socially and culturally conservative voters” with populist economic views are the fastest-growing part of the electorate – and Democrats won’t be competitive with them unless the party becomes “purposefully more permissive” on issues like guns. Murphy even conceded he’d spent years treating gun control as a litmus test but is “rethinking the wisdom of that.” 

The Historical Case for a Bigger Tent

Fogleman notes Democrats were never stronger in modern times than after 2008, when they welcomed a sizable bloc of pro-gun members. That wave brought a filibuster-proof Senate and a 79-seat House margin. According to a New York Times analysis cited by Fogleman, 67 Democrats elected that year held NRA “A” ratings, with 13 more rated “B” – over a quarter of the federal caucus. Put bluntly: a party that could tolerate dissent on guns was a party capable of winning everywhere. 

The Road Back Is Steep

That coalition has all but vanished. Fogleman points out there are zero NRA-endorsed Democrats in federal office today, and only one Democrat – Rep. Jared Golden (ME-02) – has co-sponsored any priority “pro-gun” bills this Congress, even as he publicly backed an “assault-weapons” ban after years of resistance. Meanwhile, the NRA’s influence has waned amid scandal and fundraising woes, and gun-control groups have become a powerful, well-funded Democratic constituency that enforces orthodoxy in primaries. A would-be pro-gun Democrat now faces skepticism from gun-rights voters and intense opposition from gun-control donors – a brutal pincer.

Case Studies: Who Counts as “Moderate” Now?

Fogleman’s profiles show how narrow the lane is. Abigail Spanberger, running as a pragmatic moderate for Virginia governor, supports an AR-15 ban just like Murphy. New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill is in the same policy zone. A genuine counterexample is Rob Sand in Iowa – the state’s only Democratic statewide official – who openly owns guns, hunts, and leans culturally moderate while pitching economic populism. But one-off personalities don’t make a trend, and it’s hard to imagine a durable wing of pro-gun Democrats until the party’s incentives change. 

Cam Edwards: Murphy Sees the Math, Not a Change of Heart

On Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Cam Edwards argues Murphy hasn’t had a conversion on gun policy – he’s just reading the scoreboard. The Democratic brand is shrinking with key swing blocs, and gun control “doesn’t play well among many Americans.” Edwards’ question: Does Murphy want pro-gun Democrats to lead – or merely to exist on the ballot to help the party reclaim power? His answer is the latter. Murphy doesn’t want to reshape the Democratic platform, Edwards says; he wants to expand the tent without ceding control of it. 

Mark Walters: A Trial Balloon That Won’t Fly

Mark Walters of Armed American Radio, joining Edwards, calls Murphy’s pitch a chameleon move – a tactical appeal to win back voters, not a principles shift. Walters contends Democrats are “desperate,” particularly with younger voters who’ve proven more persuadable on civil liberties and cultural issues than Beltway strategists assumed. He predicts Murphy’s gambit fails because voters “aren’t stupid,” and because any Democrats recruited under a looser litmus test would still vote with leadership on big-ticket gun bills once in office.

The Institutional Wall: Follow the Money, Follow the Primaries

Edwards’ most practical objection is structural: gun-control groups have staked everything on the Democratic Party. They have little sway among Republicans, so any dilution of their clout inside the Democratic tent is an existential threat. If a pro-gun Democrat files in a primary, expect the professional gun-control apparatus to spend heavily to keep them out. Meanwhile, as Fogleman underscores, gun-rights groups are more skeptical and less resourced than they were 15 years ago. So the candidate who breaks ranks risks being underfunded by the right and crushed by the left. 

What “Big Tent on Guns” Would Actually Require

If Murphy’s serious, the party would need more than rhetorical openness. It would require permission structures: state parties signaling that candidates can oppose an AR-15 ban or support permitless carry without being excommunicated; donor networks that don’t punish deviations; and a détente with national gun-control groups that allows regional variation. It would also require a message pivot toward crime control and due process rather than platform planks that read like ban lists. Today, as Fogleman documents, the default Democratic “moderate” still endorses sweeping rifle bans – proof the permission structure doesn’t yet exist. 

Could Democrats Split the Issue Differently?

There is a narrow path. A Democrat could ditch the rifle bans that alienate rural and working-class gun owners while embracing targeted, due-process-centric measures (e.g., truly rights-protective crisis-intervention laws, tougher penalties for armed repeat offenders, faster NICS adjudications). That lane might play in parts of the Midwest, Mountain West, or Sun Belt exurbs – especially if paired with economic populism that Murphy touts as a tent pole. But it requires saying no to national ban demands, and Fogleman’s evidence suggests few Democrats are willing to do that in 2025.

Risks and Rewards for Both Parties

For Democrats, the upside of Murphy’s approach is obvious: compete again in rural and small-metro districts where gun culture is normal life, not a culture war. The risk is a fracture with core donors and activist groups that have invested a decade building gun-control orthodoxy inside the party. For Republicans, a revived Blue Dog-style wing would require adjusting strategies – but as Edwards and Walters argue, it’s not clear the Democratic ecosystem will actually allow it.

The Math Is Right; the Machinery Isn’t

Murphy’s political math matches Fogleman’s history: Democrats were unbeatable when they tolerated dissent on guns. But the party’s machinery – donors, advocacy groups, primary electorates – now punishes that dissent. Edwards and Walters are persuasive that this looks like a trial balloon, not a reformation. If there’s a near-term testbed, it’s likely to be red or purple states with candidates like Rob Sand who can credibly talk guns, faith, and country alongside pocketbook populism. If even those races draw coordinated primary fire from gun-control groups, we’ll have our answer.

The Bottom Line

Jake Fogleman shows the data case for a big tent; Cam Edwards and Mark Walters spotlight the political and institutional barriers that make it unlikely. My view: Murphy is correct about where the voters are trending – and about what it would take to win them. But unless Democratic gatekeepers codify permission for pro-gun Democrats to run and win, this will remain more press release than pivot. The first real sign he’s serious won’t be a quote. It’ll be the day a Democrat in a swing district publicly rejects a rifle ban – and the party power structure shrugs instead of pounces.