Kaylee Peterson (D), who is challenging current Idaho Congressman Russ Fulcher (R) for the 1st Congressional District for the third time, has made her position on several gun-control policies clear.
Among the policies Peterson has supported are firearm registration, so-called “assault weapons” bans, and limits on magazine capacity.
More recently, Peterson also received an F rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
For a candidate seeking to represent Idaho’s 1st Congressional District, that is certainly something gun owners should take notice of.
This is Peterson’s third campaign against Fulcher. She previously challenged him in 2022 and 2024.
Here are the results:
2024:
Russ Fulcher — 71.0%
Kaylee Peterson — 25.4%
2022:
Russ Fulcher — 71.3%
Kaylee Peterson — 26.3%
Idaho’s official election records confirm Peterson has never won a general election and has twice previously run against Fulcher for Congress.
Unlike some candidates who attempt to distance themselves from the Democratic Party while running as independents, Peterson is running openly as a Democrat.
That makes her positions on the Second Amendment particularly important for Idaho gun owners to examine.
And her NRA rating raises an obvious question:
Why answer the survey in a way that results in an “F” rating? Or did the NRA see something the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance did?
Candidates who decline to answer questionnaires generally don’t receive a substantive grade based on their answers. Peterson chose to provide answers.
And those answers give Idaho gun owners an opportunity to see where she stands.
Peterson has never held elected office, so there is no legislative voting record to examine. That makes her public statements, questionnaires, and interviews especially important.
Peterson did, however, discuss guns during a recently uncovered 2022 interview with Future Latino when she first ran against Fulcher.
The interview is particularly interesting because Peterson made several statements about firearms that Idaho gun owners should know about.
For example, Peterson complained about the “complete lack of gun legislation.”
That statement should raise some eyebrows.
Extensive federal and state laws already regulate firearms. Far too many infringements are already on the books.
Peterson also said during the interview:
“No one is proposing that we take away guns, or take guns out of homes.”
Yet many states are proposing banning guns that people already own. And in some cases, there is no “grandfather clause,” which means gun owners would have to give up guns they currently own.
Peterson then discussed the 1994 federal assault weapons ban and suggested that people who want so-called “assault weapons” should be subject to:
“background checks, and registrations with trainings.”
That is significant.
Peterson was advocating for firearm registration as part of her proposed regulatory system.
And that isn’t simply a matter of requiring another background check at the point of purchase. A registration system creates a government record of firearms and their owners.
Idaho’s state constitution specifically addresses firearm registration and prohibits the state from establishing a registry of firearms or firearm owners.
Peterson did not stop there. She also addressed magazine capacity.
Her stance was straightforward:
“I absolutely support limiting magazine capacity.”
That position would place her directly at odds with Idaho’s current approach to protecting firearm and magazine ownership.
It is also worth asking what practical problem a magazine-capacity restriction would actually solve. Criminals who intend to use firearms unlawfully are not generally constrained by laws aimed at law-abiding gun owners.
Peterson also talked about allowing teachers to defend themselves and their students with firearms.
Her answer was equally clear:
“And no, I in no way support arming teachers.”
That gives voters another important piece of information about her position on the Second Amendment and armed self-defense. No one is advocating that teachers be forced to arm themselves. It is a choice that they should have under the Second Amendment.
Peterson is running as a Democrat, and she is not attempting to disguise that fact. But party labels aren’t the only thing Idaho gun owners should examine when evaluating candidates.
Look at what candidates have actually said.
Look at how they answer gun-rights questionnaires.
Look at whether they support registration, bans or magazine restrictions.
And look at whether they support the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
In Peterson’s case, her public statements provide Idaho gun owners with a significant amount of information about where she stands.
The NRA’s F rating is only the latest piece of that record.
For gun owners, the important question isn’t simply what party a candidate belongs to.
It’s what that candidate intends to do with the Second Amendment if given the opportunity.