{"id":611,"date":"2026-10-26T06:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-26T13:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/?p=611"},"modified":"2026-10-25T20:25:46","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T03:25:46","slug":"four-senate-races-to-watch-and-why-muskets-only-fails-the-constitutional-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/?p=611","title":{"rendered":"Four Senate races to watch\u2014and why \u201cmuskets only\u201d fails the constitutional test"},"content":{"rendered":"

The November 3 elections put Senate control\u2014and the future of federal legislation and judicial confirmations\u2014before voters. Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio offer four consequential contests to watch. These are general elections, not four scheduled runoffs. Georgia\u2019s calendar does provide for a December 1 runoff if no candidate wins a majority; that possibility should not be confused with a result already determined. Reuters\u2019 October 12 race overview<\/a> and Georgia\u2019s official calendar<\/a> establish the distinction.<\/p>\n

Michigan: Abdul El-Sayed versus Mike Rogers.<\/strong> Democrat El-Sayed and Republican Rogers are competing for the open Senate seat. WDIV\u2019s October 21 debate coverage describes a contest over household costs, healthcare, immigration enforcement and Iran. Rogers accused El-Sayed of wanting to defund law enforcement; El-Sayed denied it. El-Sayed attacked Rogers\u2019 alignment with President Donald Trump, while Rogers complained that his opponent kept inserting Trump into his answers. WDIV reported the accusation and El-Sayed\u2019s denial separately. WDIV\u2019s original debate report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What a win means:<\/strong> A Rogers victory would flip a Democratic-held seat to Republicans, forcing Democrats to offset that loss with an additional pickup elsewhere. An El-Sayed victory would preserve the seat for Democrats and deny Republicans a gain; it would protect the Democratic starting position rather than add a new seat.<\/em><\/p>\n

Georgia: Jon Ossoff versus Mike Collins.<\/strong> Democratic incumbent Ossoff faces Republican Collins in a race that could change either party\u2019s Senate arithmetic. Georgia requires a majority: if nobody clears that threshold, the top two advance to December 1. That makes Georgia worth watching beyond election night, but a close poll is not evidence that a runoff will occur. Reuters<\/a>; State of Georgia runoff rules<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What a win means:<\/strong> A Collins victory would take a seat from Democrats and strengthen Republicans\u2019 position in the Senate. An Ossoff victory would preserve a Democratic-held seat, keeping the party\u2019s majority ambitions from suffering a setback. If a runoff is required, the seat\u2019s outcome would remain unresolved until December 1; its importance to control would depend on other results.<\/em><\/p>\n

North Carolina: Roy Cooper versus Michael Whatley.<\/strong> Former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper faces former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley for the Republican-held open seat. Reuters\u2019 race overview<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What a win means:<\/strong> A Cooper victory would flip a Republican-held seat to Democrats, bringing them one seat closer to a majority. A Whatley victory would preserve the seat for Republicans and deny Democrats a pickup, increasing their dependence on wins elsewhere.<\/em><\/p>\n

Ohio: Sherrod Brown versus Jon Husted.<\/strong> Democratic former Sen. Sherrod Brown challenges Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed after JD Vance became vice president. This special election fills the remainder of that term through January 2029. Reuters\u2019 race overview<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What a win means:<\/strong> A Brown victory would flip this Republican-held seat to Democrats. A Husted victory would keep it Republican and close off another Democratic pickup opportunity. Either result affects the parties\u2019 majority calculations; the winner serves the remaining term, rather than a new six-year term.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Michigan campaign also raises a constitutional question. In the YouTube transcript of a Fox News clip uploaded October 21, El-Sayed invokes originalism, contrasts founding-era muskets with modern firearms and refers to \u201cequal rights to a musket.\u201d Fox identifies the setting as a town hall in Midland, Michigan; the upload date does not establish when the speech was recorded. The Four Boxes Diner\u2019s October 25 analysis includes a longer excerpt, in which El-Sayed also challenges unrestricted gun access. Both captioned excerpts were reviewed; the complete original speech remains unverified. Fox News, 0:00\u20130:24, especially 0:20<\/a>; Mr. Smith\u2019s longer excerpt, approximately 1:44\u20133:19<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Editorial Opinion<\/h2>\n

A constitutional right does not come with a manufacturing-date cutoff. Taken as a legal proposition, the musket-only argument described in that reporting fails directly under District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em> (2008). The Court protected an individual right to possess a handgun for self-defense in the home, independent of service in a militia. At page 582, it expressly rejected limiting protected arms to those available in the eighteenth century, calling that argument \u201cbordering on the frivolous.\u201d This is not a clever loophole conservative judges forgot to consider. They considered it and rejected it. Heller<\/em>, 554 U.S. 570, 582, 635<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mr. Smith puts the core point succinctly: \u201cconstitutional rights go far beyond technology that existed in 1791.\u201d His discussion of Caetano v. Massachusetts<\/em> (2016) supplies the concrete example. In its per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court rejected Massachusetts\u2019 reasoning that stun guns fell outside the Second Amendment because they were not in common use when it was adopted. The Court vacated the judgment and sent the case back; it did not decide every modern-weapons question. But a candidate using muskets to narrow an originalist reading is running into an answer the Court has already given. Mr. Smith, approximately 5:08 and 6:34\u20137:30<\/a>; Caetano<\/em>, 577 U.S. 411, 411\u2013412<\/a>.<\/p>\n

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen<\/em> (2022) supplies the governing method, not a nostalgic gun catalog. When the amendment\u2019s text covers the conduct, the government must justify its restriction through the nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation. A politician\u2019s assessment that a restriction would be useful does not replace that inquiry. Bruen<\/em> expressly explains that the historically understood category of arms includes modern instruments of armed self-defense. A blanket exclusion based merely on a weapon\u2019s invention after the founding runs into the precedent head-on. Bruen<\/em>, 597 U.S. 1, 17\u201330<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But a pro-Constitution argument must describe the limits honestly. United States v. Rahimi<\/em> (2024) upheld temporary disarmament where a court had found an individual posed a credible physical threat to another. The Court explained that a modern restriction can fit historical principles without duplicating an old statute word for word. Historical reasoning works by relevant analogy; it neither freezes firearms technology nor wipes out every regulation. Claiming that Bruen<\/em> invalidates all gun laws would be another shortcut around the actual cases. Rahimi<\/em>, 602 U.S. 680, 690\u2013700<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mr. Smith also offers a useful discipline in his 2025 scholarship: a historical principle should not contradict rights the Supreme Court has already recognized. His proposed framework is scholarship, not a new test adopted by the Court. Applied here, the point is straightforward: general appeals to public safety do not erase the precedents protecting modern arms. The Constitution is not an antique dealer\u2019s inventory.<\/strong> Mr. Smith\u2019s published analysis<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The 2026 decisions make that distinction more concrete. In United States v. Hemani<\/em> on June 18, the Court rejected the government\u2019s prosecution based on regular marijuana use under the theory presented, while expressly leaving questions involving addiction, present intoxication and individualized dangerousness unresolved. On June 25, Wolford v. Lopez<\/em> invalidated Hawaii\u2019s rule barring licensed handgun carry on private property open to the public without express owner permission. It preserved owners\u2019 authority to exclude firearms. These are specific applications of constitutional analysis, not permission to declare every gun restriction invalid\u2014or every modern gun unprotected. Hemani<\/em>, slip op. pp. 18\u201319<\/a>; Wolford<\/em>, slip op. pp. 7\u20138, 13\u201324<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The fuller excerpt makes the criticism more precise. El-Sayed\u2019s objection to unrestricted gun access is not, by itself, contrary to Supreme Court precedent. The problem is the suggestion that originalism can shrink protection to founding-era equipment. Calling the opposing position unlimited does not answer the actual rule protecting modern arms. Nor does this excerpt establish a legislative promise to confiscate every modern firearm. The fair, hard question is whether El-Sayed accepts Heller<\/em> and Caetano<\/em> or wants their rule changed. Conservatives should demand that answer rather than give him an easy escape through an exaggerated account of what he said.<\/p>\n

If you see some odd mistakes, bad citations, inconsistent analysis, do let us know in the comments below.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

References<\/h2>\n
\n

Caetano v. Massachusetts<\/em>, 577 U.S. 411 (2016). https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/USREPORTS-577\/pdf\/USREPORTS-577-411.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). https:\/\/tile.loc.gov\/storage-services\/service\/ll\/usrep\/usrep554\/usrep554570\/usrep554570.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Fox News. (2026, October 21). El-Sayed on the Second Amendment: ‘Everyone should have equal rights to a musket’ #shorts #politics<\/em> [Video]. YouTube. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/shorts\/WJCtT6wNb4g<\/a><\/p>\n

Friel, N., & Schulz, S. (2026, October 21). Rogers, El-Sayed battle over immigration, health care, and Iran in Michigan Senate debate<\/em>. ClickOnDetroit\/WDIV Local 4. https:\/\/www.clickondetroit.com\/news\/local\/2026\/10\/22\/rogers-el-sayed-battle-over-immigration-health-care-and-iran-in-senate-debate\/<\/a><\/p>\n

McCaskill, N. D. (2026, October 12). Factbox\u2014The races that will decide control of the US Senate<\/em>. Reuters. Republished by 104.1 WIKY. https:\/\/wiky.com\/2026\/10\/12\/factbox-the-races-that-will-decide-control-of-the-us-senate\/<\/a><\/p>\n

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen<\/em>, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/20-843_7j80.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Smith, M. W. (2025, January 30). The third rails of Second Amendment jurisprudence: Guidance on deriving historical principles post-Bruen<\/em>. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: Per Curiam. https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/the-third-rails-of-second-amendment-jurisprudence-guidance-on-deriving-historical-principles-post-bruen-mark-w-smith\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Smith, M. W. [The Four Boxes Diner]. (2026, October 25). MAJOR BREAKING NEWS! DEMOCRAT SENATE CANDIDATE COMES OUT AGAINST 2A!<\/em> [Video]. YouTube. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0UCnuYt0s_A<\/a><\/p>\n

State of Georgia. (n.d.-a). Election day\u2014General election runoff<\/em>. Georgia.gov. Retrieved October 25, 2026, from https:\/\/georgia.gov\/events\/2026-12-01\/election-day-general-election-runoff<\/a><\/p>\n

State of Georgia. (n.d.-b). Georgia election guide<\/em>. Georgia.gov. Retrieved October 25, 2026, from https:\/\/georgia.gov\/georgia-election-guide<\/a><\/p>\n

United States v. Hemani<\/em>, No. 24-1234 (U.S. June 18, 2026) (slip opinion). https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/24-1234_new_6k47.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

United States v. Rahimi<\/em>, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-915_8o6b.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Wolford v. Lopez<\/em>, No. 24-1046 (U.S. June 25, 2026) (slip opinion). https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/24-1046_nmio.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Four consequential Senate contests, Georgia\u2019s conditional runoff, and a constitutional examination of the reported musket argument under Heller, Bruen, Rahimi and the Court\u2019s 2026 decisions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/611","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=611"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/611\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":618,"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/611\/revisions\/618"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/partialmedia.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}