Twin Falls legislative candidate Kevin Moxley is presenting himself as an “Independent” and a Second Amendment supporter, but his record and the organizations recognizing him raise some serious questions about where he actually stands on gun rights.

The 2026 general election has been one of the more unique elections we have seen since the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance was founded in 2012. We have never seen so many candidates who have traditionally aligned with the political left suddenly presenting themselves as “pro-Second Amendment,” while several are also pushing the “Independent” label in an apparent effort to distance themselves from the Democratic Party.

Moxley, like U.S. Senate candidate Todd Achilles, is also emphasizing his status as a veteran as part of his political identity.

As I have mentioned before, as a veteran myself, I can tell you that military service does not automatically make someone pro-gun. There are plenty of veterans who hold political views that are hostile to the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Wearing a military uniform does not determine someone’s position on the Second Amendment.

But Moxley has actually given us a pretty significant clue about his views on firearms on his own campaign website.

Moxley describes himself as a Second Amendment supporter and says:

“After his service, Kevin lived in Illinois — a moderate and a Second Amendment supporter in a state that didn’t always represent his values. He watched the state legislature ban assault-style rifles and saw how communities like his felt completely unheard.”

There is an obvious problem with this statement.

Moxley says he was upset that Illinois banned “assault-style rifles.” But that terminology is worth examining. “Assault-style rifle” is language commonly used in the gun-control debate to describe a category of firearms that gun-rights advocates generally refer to by their actual firearm type rather than by a politically loaded designation.

If Moxley is genuinely opposed to Illinois’ ban, Idaho gun owners should be asking a simple question:

Does he oppose bans on so-called “assault weapons” in principle, or does he simply believe Illinois went too far?

That is an important distinction.

And unfortunately, Moxley hasn’t provided Idaho gun owners with much information about where he stands on the specific issues that matter.

Moxley did not return the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance candidate survey, leaving Idaho gun owners without his answers on a range of specific Second Amendment issues.

Maybe he didn’t receive the survey. Maybe he chose not to answer it. Either way, voters are left without those answers.

And then there is the NRA-PVF rating.

The National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund currently gives Kevin Moxley an F rating for the 2026 election. The NRA-PVF explains that its ratings are based on candidates’ voting records, public statements and responses to its questionnaire, and describes an F as its rating for a candidate it considers a consistent opponent of gun owners’ rights.

That is a pretty significant problem for a candidate whose own website says:

“A firm believer in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms — and will defend it in Boise.”

So what explains the discrepancy?

Perhaps Moxley answered the NRA-PVF questionnaire in a way that earned him an F.

Perhaps his public statements or other positions caused the NRA-PVF to reach that conclusion.

Or perhaps there is another explanation.

But the important point is that the NRA-PVF has evaluated him and given him an F.

There is another piece of information that Idaho gun owners should know.

Moxley has also been identified as a Gun Sense Candidate by the Everytown/Moms Demand Action network.

This isn’t simply a generic political endorsement. Everytown says candidates receive the Gun Sense Candidate distinction after completing a questionnaire focused on gun-safety policies and satisfying the organization’s requirements. Everytown says the distinction is intended to signal that a candidate will “govern with gun safety in mind” if elected.

Everytown has specifically identified issues such as background checks, disarming domestic abusers and, for state candidates, red-flag laws as criteria considered through its Gun Sense Candidate program.

That raises another obvious question:

Why would a candidate who says he is a firm believer in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms qualify for a distinction from one of the nation’s leading gun-control organizations?

Moxley is asking Idaho voters to take his Second Amendment claim at face value.

But Idaho gun owners deserve more than a campaign website declaration.

They deserve to know how he would vote.

Would he oppose so-called “assault weapon” bans?

Would he oppose red-flag confiscation laws?

Would he oppose magazine-capacity bans?

Would he oppose mandatory waiting periods?

Would he protect Idaho’s constitutional carry laws?

Would he protect the right to openly carry a firearm?

Would he protect Idaho’s Stand Your Ground laws?

These aren’t obscure questions. These are the kinds of issues that tell gun owners what a candidate actually believes.

Moxley has a right to call himself an Independent. He has a right to call himself a Second Amendment supporter. And his military service is certainly something he can be proud of.

But labels are not a gun-rights record.

The NRA-PVF has given Kevin Moxley an F. He did not return the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance candidate survey. And the Everytown/Moms Demand Action network has recognized him as a Gun Sense Candidate.

Until Moxley answers the specific questions Idaho gun owners are asking, there is a very good reason for Second Amendment voters to look beyond the “Independent” label, the veteran credentials and the words “2nd Amendment Supporter” on his campaign website.

Idaho gun owners deserve to know exactly where Kevin Moxley stands.